Dissertation On Strategic Evaluation of Interventions in Promoting Cycling and Walking by Meyyapparaj

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

CIVIL, MARITIME AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND
SCIENCE
Strategic evaluation of Interventions in Promoting Cycling and Walking

By
Meyyapparaj M
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the degree of MSc (Transportation Planning and Engineering)
2012-2013
September 2013
Abstract
In the past years, huge investments has been made by the Government for cycling and walking
schemes both at national and at Local Authority levels. Now there is a growing recognition of
the contribution that these non-motorized modes can make to some of the greatest challenges
faced by the society like climate change, increasing levels of obesity and traffic congestion,
however there is less evidence to clear that how this wider contribution is valued in economic
terms and how much beneficial they are. Hence there is a significant importance for economic
analysis of these projects to justify and sustain the investments.
The literature review evaluated the different types of interventions in promoting cycling and
walking, what are the benefits associated with these schemes and how these benefits are valued.
This has helped to gain some idea regarding the economic analysis and gave the research a
vital background.
This report has investigated the case of Itchen Riverside Boardwalk in Southampton, and aimed
to evaluate the benefits associated with Environment, Health and Transportation. Pre and Post
intervention surveys done at the walkway in the years 2010 and 2011 formed the basis for the
usage estimation of cyclists and pedestrians. Procedures for the economic evaluation is done
as per the Transport Analysis Guidance for cycling and walking schemes Unit 3.14.1 from
Department for Transport.
The Cost Benefit Ratio obtained from the analysis of the Itchen Boardwalk is 1:10 which
proves to be a highly beneficial. Majority of the benefit values are coming from Health and
Journey Ambience related benefits.
Acknowledgement
This dissertation is a milestone in my academic career. The theories and concepts which I have
gathered would have never been possible without the extensive research work carried out. I am
grateful to a few people who have guided and supported me throughout the research process
and provided assistance for the work.
I would first like to thank my research supervisor Mr. John Preston who guided me throughout
the completion of this project. His recommendations and instructions has enabled me to
assemble and finish the dissertation effectively. My family has supported and helped me along
the course of this dissertation by giving encouragement and providing the moral and emotional
support I needed to complete my project. I am really grateful to them.
Finally thanks to the almighty for his blessings.
ii
Contents
Abstract...i
Acknowledgments.ii
Contentsiii
List of Figures..v
List of Tablesv
1. Introduction.1
1.1 Overview..1
1.2 Aims and Objectives.2
1.3 Structure of the Report..3
2. Literature review.4
2.1. Introduction.4
2.2. Intervention and its effect on human behavior..4
2.3. Types of Interventions..5
2.4. Impact of Engineering measures5
2.5. Economic evaluation of Interventions6
2.6. Evaluation of Cycling Benefits..7
2.7. Evaluation of walking Benefits..10
2.8. Evidences of BCR of Cycling and walking projects in UK.11
2.9. Site Location of Itchen Riverside Boardwalk12
3. Methodology..15
3.1. Estimation of Cycling and Walking users17
3.2. Estimation of Car Kilometers..19
3.3. Estimation of commuter Trips20
4. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Results.21
4.1. Capital and Recurring Maintenance Cost21
4.2. Evaluation of benefits from the Scheme.22
4.2.1. Environment Benefits.22
4.2.2. Journey Ambience Benefits24
4.2.3. Health Benefits28
4.2.4. Absenteeism Benefits.29
iii
4.2.5. Accident Reduction Benefits31

4.2.6. Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits..35
4.2.7. Indirect Tax Revenue Loss.38
4.2.8. Discounting of Cost and Benefits..39
5. Discussion and Analysis of Results..40
6. Conclusion.42
References.45
Appendix A: Usage Estimation.52
Appendix B: Estimation of Car Kilometers saved53
Appendix C: Benefits from Marginal Economic Cost Method54
Appendix D: Journey Ambience Benefits.57
Appendix E: Health and Reduced Absenteeism Benefits..58
Appendix F: Benefits from Travel Time Savings and Vehicle Operating Cost..61
Appendix G: Indirect Tax Calculation70
Appendix H: Accident Reduction Benefits71
Appendix I: Cost Benefit Analysis73
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Cycling and walking trips per person per year since 1995.1
Figure 2: Distance travelled through cycling and walking per person per year since 19952
Figure 3: Changes in the number of cyclist accidents with the number of cyclists in London...9
Figure 4: Itchen Riverside Boardwalk, Southampton..12
Figure 5: Southern end of the walkway towards the Industrial area13
Figure 6: Route User Survey Location at Itchen Boardwalk, Southampton16
Figure 7: Itchen Riverside footpath before the construction of walkway in 2010..26
Figure 8: The Itchen walkway after construction in 2011....26
Figure 9: Directional Signage and Information panels at the walkway...27
List of Tables
Table 1: Non-Motorized transportation Benefits and Costs..6
Table 2: Factors Affecting Walking and Cycling Travel Demand7
Table 3: Congestion savings estimates..8
Table 4: Walkability Economic impacts......10
Table 5: Four day Southampton RUS count data14
Table 6: Modified Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits16
Table 7: Indicators used for the economic appraisal of walking and cycling schemes...17
Table 8: Number of users generated through the intervention....18
Table 9: Traffic count data in Bevois valley Road..23
Table 10: PCU factors for conversion are used from Table B4 in TAG Unit 3.9.5....23
Table 11: Summary of value of journey ambience benefit of different
types of cycle facility relative to no facilities24
Table 12: Values of different aspects of the pedestrian environment used in the evaluation
of the London Strategic Walk Network.25
Table 13: Value of prevention per casualty28
v
Table 14: Accident prevention values as per severity of accidents13

Table 15: Accident report for cyclists in the roads adjacent to the Boardwalk since 2005....32
Table 16: Number of cyclists in Bevois Valley Road, Southampton Traffic count...32
Table 17: Number of incidents per million car kilometres in A335 road link33
Table 18: Working and Nonworking Value of time36
Table 19: Cost and Benefit accounting of Itchen Boardwalk Case study....40
vi
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
Walking and cycling are now widely accepted as a key means to incorporate physical activity
into everyday lifestyles. This can be done in the form of commuting to workplace, getting to
schools, visiting friends, travel to shops and in the form of recreational activities, for example
cycling through the countryside etc. Physical activity is recognized as key element for a healthy
lifestyle, reducing the risk of illness and premature deaths. For this reason physical activity has
been identified as a best buy for public health (Morris, 2004). In addition to health related
benefits, increase in these modes helps to reduce traffic congestion and carbon emissions.
However, there are still less evidences which supports the economic analysis of cycling and
walking projects and is a major area to focus.
If we look at the past trend of cycling and walking in the past two decades across United
Kingdom and other developed countries, the numbers have reduced quiet significantly. The
National Travel Survey report, 2012 (DfT, 2013) shows that in United Kingdom the average
number of walking trips was 212 trips per person per year in 2012 compared with 292 trips in
1995, a reduction of 27.4%. The number of bicycle trips per person per year has dropped from
18 trips in 1995 to 16 trips in 2012 (figure 1). However in terms of distance travelled, the
average number of bicycle miles has increased by 23.4% from 43 miles in 1995 to 53 miles in
2012 and number of walking miles has reduced from 200 miles per person per year to 181
miles per person in 2012 (figure 2). This is mainly as a result of widespread use of private car
and public transport, increased sedentary leisure activities and insufficient pedestrian and
cycling infrastructure like dedicated cycle tracks and foot paths, shared space on roads etc.
Trips per person per year

292292292271271271
244244246246245249
216221227213222212
Cycling
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
18 18 18 17 17 17 16 16 15 16 14 16 14 16 15 15 16 16
Walking
Figure 1 Cycling and walking trips per person per year since 1995.
Miles per person per year

200 200 200 198 198 198 198 198 201 203 197 201 190 193 196 183 187
181
Cycling
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
43 43 43 40 40 40 36 36 37 39 36 39 40 42 46 42 49 53
Walking
Figure 2 Distance travelled through cycling and walking per person per year since 1995.
In the past decade huge investments has been done at the National and local Authority level for
improving the facilities for cycling and walking. A list of action plans were set up in 2004 for
promoting cycling and walking across the country (DfT, 2004). The National Cycle Network
(NCN) has also grown considerably since 1995 by Sustrans, a UK charity which promotes
sustainable transport; the network now consists of 14000 miles of walking and cycling
networks in 2013 which includes scenic traffic-free paths, quiet roads and lanes, signed onroad routes, themed long-distance routes (Sustrans, 2013). In 2008 Sustrans secured 50
million of Big Lottery Funding to help develop the local travel in 79 communities known as
Sustrans Connect2 programme, by creating new crossings and bridges to overcome barriers
such as busy roads, rivers and railways, giving people easier and healthier access to their
schools, shops, parks and countryside (iConnect, 2013).
Cycling England an independent expert body, established by Department for Transport in 2005
has made significant contributions for the promotion of cycling through championing best
practice and channeling funding to partners engaged in training, engineering and marketing
projects. Number of schemes has been launched under Cycling England for promoting Cycling
like Cycling Cities and Cycling Towns, Bikeablity, Bike It, Links to School, National cycle
Journey planner and Travel plans for cycling. The funding also raised from a 2006 base of 5
million to a total investment package of 160 million in 2008 (DfT, 2008a). The Department
for Transport has also announced 560 million for a Local Sustainable Transport Fund, which
is available for the period from 2011-2015 (DfT, 2008b).
1.2 Aims and Objectives

Besides the huge investments done in the recent years for promoting cycling and walking, it is
also an important aspect to analyze the benefits from these project schemes. This research
project will conduct a Cost-Benefit analysis of a cycling and walking infrastructure, the Itchen
Riverside Boardwalk in Southampton. It aims to evaluate the benefits associated with the
increase in usage numbers of cyclists and pedestrians in the riverside as a result of the
construction of the Boardwalk. Economic evaluation benefits involves the combination of
Environment, Health and Transport economics.
2
1.3 Structure of Report

Literature survey will initially be looking at an overview of the types of interventions and its
effects on human behavior. Further detailed review is done to know the different benefits
associated with cycling and walking projects and the methods used for the economic
evaluation. Other site reports and previous surveys conducted specifically for the Itchen
walkway is also reviewed at the end. In the next chapter, we shall look at the methodology and
other survey data used for further evaluation of benefits. Later we will be going through the
detailed calculation of each benefits one by one. The next chapter will include a snapshot of all
the results obtained and a brief discussion over the results. Finally a sensitivity analysis is done
considering different scenarios related to the walkway and respective changes in the CostBenefit Ratio and Net Present Value of the scheme. The report ends with key conclusions and
shortfalls in this research project.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Introduction:
Sustrans along with the Big Lottery Fund and the respective Local authority partners has
invested over 100 million for the Connect 2 programme, developing number of engineering
interventions over 80 sites across United Kingdom with the main purpose of promoting walking
and Cycling in public. Secondly these interventions could also be used as natural experiments
from which we can evaluate their impact on travel volumes, travel time and cost, on health
benefits associated with walking and cycling activity, and on environmental benefits due to
reduction in carbon emissions.
2.2 Interventions and its effect on human behavior

It is important to design interventions in such a way which helps in changing the human
behavior and promotes walking and cycling. Many studies has been conducted in the past to
know the effectiveness of cycling and walking interventions and the validity of cognitive and
behavior techniques used in the interventions.
The research paper published on the topic Behavior Change Techniques (BCT) used to
promote walking and cycling (Bird et al., 2013) gives us information on the Behavior change
techniques used in walking and cycling interventions targeted at adults. Forty six past studies
on walking and cycling interventions met the inclusion criteria of this review. The principle
findings of this research showed that in more than half of the studies two often used BCT were:
prompting self-monitoring of behavior and prompting intention formation. Self-monitoring
techniques like using a pedometer, or by mobile phone application ( Baker et al .,2008; Merom
et al., 2007) for monitoring walking has shown positive changes as it helps to increasing selfefficacy (Du et al., 2011) and to reduce perceived barriers (Wilbur et al.,2003). In contrast, this
technique was used only in one out of 16 interventions assessed for their effects on cycling
behavior which has limited our understanding of its relationship with cycling outcomes.
Provide general encouragement is one BCT used in most of the interventions which has not
shown any significant changes (Bird et al., 2013). Another useful finding of this study tells us
that instead of using a single BCT combination of many BCTs results in significant behavior
change. But a shortcoming of this study is it couldnt empirically determine the contribution
made by each individual technique and also was unable to give results for any particular
combination of BCTs.
It is been concluded that evidently built up environment helps to promote the cycling behavior
but few controlled intervention studies are available at present to prove this (National Institute
for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2007). It is also claimed from previous studies that lack of
supportive infrastructure also limits the willingness of people to shift towards cycling (Mutrie
et al., 2002) particularly in areas which doesnt have any cycling culture.
Two general characteristics of interventions found to be effective were Targeting and
Tailoring (Ogilvie et al., 2007). Most of the interventions used for promoting walking as mode
of transport targeted only those individuals or households who were identified through prior
screening as already motivated to change their behavior (Ogilvie et al., 2007). Interventions for
promoting general walking targeted mostly the sedentary people or patients with particular
health conditions. Second vital characteristics of effective interventions was to involve content
4
tailored to participants requirement or circumstances such as promoting environment friendly

modes of transport or to map individual childrens journey to school (Ogilvie et al., 2007).
Most promising studies evidently proved that among the targeted participants successful
interventions could increase general walking by 30-60 minutes a week and walking as a mode
of transport by 15-30 minutes a week on average (Ogilvie et al., 2007).
2.3 Types of Interventions:

Amanda Killoran, Nick Doyle, Seta Waller, Clare Wohlgemuth and Hugo Crombie in their
evidence briefing on the topic Transport interventions for promoting safe cycling and
walking (Killoran et al., 2006) have broadly categorized the interventions as follows:
Targeted behavior change programs- directed at motivated sub groups.

Publicity campaigns and agents of change- directed at groups undifferentiated by
motivation or personal travel circumstances.
Engineering measures- dedicated cycle paths, shared on road cycle space, short cycle
routes etc.
Financial incentives like providing subsidy to employees who commute to work by
modes other than cars, toll charge for motor vehicles etc.
Providing alternative services.
As this report is mainly focusing on evaluation of engineering interventions we shall look at

few studies done in the past related to engineering measures and its effect on promoting cycling
and walking.
2.4 Impact of engineering measures:

Engineering measures and its effect on increasing cycling and walking from the past studies
have been systematically reviewed and are added in the paper published by the British Medical
Journal on the heading Promoting walking and cycling as an alternative to use cars by Ogilvie
et al., 2004. Out of the 22 studies which met the inclusion criteria, six studies were related to
engineering interventions. Out of which 3 studies related to improving and extending cycle
route networks in Delft (Netherlands; controlled study) and Detmold and Rosenheim
(Germany; uncontrolled study). One study done on a new cycle route opened to a school in
Stockton, England (Uncontrolled study). Another done on traffic restraints scheme like 20 mph
zones in six urban areas and of the by-pass demonstration project in six small towns in England
(Uncontrolled study). Sixth study is an uncontrolled study done in Boston where the modal
shift to work place was checked after the introduction of the downtown restricted zone.
Findings in the Delft study showed a 3% increase in cycling share, 4% increase in bike trips
and no change in walking and car trips from the households in the intervention suburb, and in
the control area the frequency of car trips increased by 15% and no changes in bike trips. In
Detmold and Rosenheim, there was a negative modal shift i.e decrease in cycle trips of 5% in
the former and 0% modal shift in the later case. In both cases there was insufficient data to
judge statistical precision of results.
5
In the Stockton study, 2,946 secondary school pupils were observed for 17 months which
showed an increase of 2% in car shares and negative shift of 2% in cycling shares and no
significant changes in walk. For the traffic restraint schemes done in England the studies
showed that the 20 mph zones provided no evidence of a change in travel patterns and in the
by-passed towns there was negative modal shift of 3% in the main mode of travel to the Town
centre. The observed proportions showed that the changes in walking share was significant, but
car and cycling mode share changes were not significant. Car restrictions, subsidized bus
services and pedestrianisation of the central business district in Boston made a positive modal
shift of 6% of commuting journeys (Ogilvie et al., 2004).
The results in these studies show mixed results of both positive and negative shift in travelling
modes due to these engineering interventions. So more natural experiments has to be performed
through engineering measures to prove its effectiveness in promotion of cycling and walking
modes.
2.5 Economic evaluation of interventions:

Adding Walking and Cycling as part of our daily travelling has the potential of many economic
benefits related to transport, health and environment. There is also growing evidence that
increasing walking and cycling levels in the population also achieves substantial economic
return in long term. The quantified benefits from them vary depending on direct and indirect
outcomes considered and the method of valuing the benefits.
The following table describes the general benefits and costs of Non-Motorized Transport
(walking, cycling, and variants such as wheelchair, scooter and handcart use) policies and
projects:
Table 1: Non-Motorized transportation Benefits and Costs
Potential
Benefits
Improved NMT
Conditions
Improved user
convenience and
comfort
Improved
accessibility for nondrivers, which
supports equity
objectives
Option value
Higher property
values
Potential
Costs
Facility costs
Lower traffic speeds
Increased NMT
Transport Activity
User enjoyment
Improved public
fitness and health
Increased community
cohesion (positive
interactions among
neighbors due to
more people walking
on local streets)
which tends to
increase local
security
Equipment costs
(shoes, bikes, etc.)
Increased crash risk
Reduced Automobile
Travel
Reduced traffic
congestion
Road and parking
facility cost savings
More Compact
Communities
Improved accessibility,
particularly for nondrivers
Transport cost savings
Consumer savings
Reduced sprawl costs
Reduced chauffeuring
Open space
burdens
Increased traffic safety
Energy conservation
Pollution reductions
preservation
More livable
communities
Higher property values
Economic development
Slower travel
Increases in some
development costs
Source: Evaluating Non-Motorized Transportation Benefits and Costs, Todd Litman, Victoria
Transport Policy Institute (2013).
6
Most often used outcomes for valuation by the transport economists are savings from reduction
in car trips, travelling time, travel cost, health care costs, absenteeism, air pollution, congestion,
and greenhouse gases (Bidwell, 2012).
There are number of factors which affect the Walking and Cycling Travel Demand. The table
below gives us information regarding the different factors and its impact on Non-Motorized
Transport:
Table 2
Factors Affecting Walking and Cycling Travel Demand (Based on Dill

and Gliebe 2008; Pratt, et al. 2012)
Factors
Impacts on Non-Motorized Travel
Age
Young people tend to have high rates of walking and cycling. Some older people have
high rates of walking for transportation and exercise.
Physical ability
Some people with impairments rely on walking and cycling, and may require facilities
with suitable design features, such as ramps for walkers and wheelchairs.
Income and
education
Many lower-income people tend to rely on non-motorized modes for transportation.

Bicycle commuting is popular among higher income professionals.
Dogs
Daily walking trips tend to be higher in households that own dogs.
Vehicles and
drivers licenses
People who do not have a car or drivers license tend to rely on walking and cycling for
transportation.
Travel costs
Walking and cycling tend to increase with the cost of driving (parking fees, fuel taxes,
road tolls, etc.)
Facilities
Walking and cycling activity tend to increase where there are good facilities (sidewalks,
crosswalks, paths, bike racks, etc.)
Roadway
conditions
Walking and cycling tend to increase in areas with narrower roads and lower vehicle
traffic speeds.
Trip length
Walking and cycling are most common for shorter (less than 2-mile) trips.
Land use
Walking and cycling tend to increase in areas with compact and mixed development
where more common destinations are within walking distances.
Promotion
Walking and cycling activity may be increased with campaigns that promote these
activities for health and environmental improvement sake.
Public support
Cycling rates tend to increase where communities consider it socially acceptable.
2.6 Evaluation of Cycling Benefits:

Three major categories which are mostly evaluated for Cost-Benefit Analysis in any Cycling
projects are:
Increasing health and fitness

Reducing traffic congestion
Reducing pollution.
While calculating the health benefits of cycling, three elements are considered:
Value of lost lives-reducing Mortality
NHS savings-Reducing the cost to the treatment of illnesses as a result of physical

inactivity (morbidity)
Productivity gains- Reducing absenteeism.
(Segal et al., 2007)
Traffic congestion is now a major concern in many towns and cities, with latest estimates
of putting the cost of congestion to the UK economy at around 20 billion (Goodwin, 2005).
Main problems caused by congestion which can be translated to monetary values are:
Wastage of travelling time and delays during a working day

Cars emitting the pollutants and inefficient engine use increase the operating cost.
Health problems related to respiratory diseases and absenteeism caused by stress.
Table below summarized the various values used to quantify the congestion savings:
Table 3 : Congestion savings estimates
Source
Range values per Km
Surface Transport costs and charges Great 9.71p-11.16p

Britain 1988-Sansom et al(2001)
Smarter choices, changing the way we travel- 3p-45p(15p average)
Cairns et al (2004)
Economic Appraisal of Cycling and Walking 7p-23p
Projects-Sustrans(2006)
Source: Various
The congestion reduction values estimated differs for rural and urban areas. According to the
values estimated by the SQW consulting research the congestion saving per km of car travel
reduced is around 22p and 11p in urban and rural area respectively. Promotion of cycling can
help in reducing air pollution which depends on the number of cars and other motorized
transport which has been substituted by cycle trips. For the final quantification purpose, number
of car kilometers replaced is estimated (Wilson et al., 2011).
Many recent studies have found that increasing the number of cycling trips has resulted in
reduction of cyclists killed or injured. Data collated from various studies done in London by
Lynn Sloman, 2006 shows the decrease in the number of deaths or serious injuries against an
increase in the cycling trips.
Figure 3 Changes in the number of cyclist accidents with the number of cyclists in London.
Similar results were also found in many other studies like Krag (2005) reports in Copenhagen
from 1990-2000 the level of cycle traffic increased by 40%, the number of accidents fell by
25%. In Netherlands, from 1980 to 1998 there was a 54% reduction in cyclist fatalities in spite
of a 30% increase in cycling (Ministry of Transport, Netherland, 1999).
Jacobsen study report and Smeeds Law also states similar scenario. Research article published
by Jacobsen (2003), concludes that by doubling the number of persons walking or cycling, the
risk of getting hit by a motorized vehicle reduces to 66%. Jacobsen in his study has taken
compared the accidents data of different places or different time with differing amount of
cycling. Jacobsen compares six sets of data falling into 3 separate categories like:
Proportion of bicycling trips to work against (Injuries/Population) / (Bike trips/Total Trips) (68
cities in California).
Amount of bicycling (Km or trips/population/day) [abscissa] against (Injuries or fatalities/Km)
[ordinate]. Bicycling in 47 Danish towns, 14 European nations, 8 European nations.
Amount of bicycling (Km/year) [abscissa] against (fatalities/Km) [ordinate] for UK 19501999, Netherlands 1980-1998.
Each of these six graphs showed the accident rates reducing with increase in cycling.
Alternatively promoting cycling in areas without any supporting traffic control measures will
increase the number of cycling accidents. Separate of road cycle tracks helps to reduce cyclist
accidents.
2.7 Evaluation of walking benefits:

In UK the National Travel Survey report (DfT, 2012a) shows that walking mode share for the
average distance travelled is only 3% comparing to 78% for car (both as driver and as
passenger) and 9% for Rail. Several reasons why walking and walkability used to be
undervalued in conventional transport planning has been stated in the paper published on the
topic Economic value of walkability by Todd Alexander Litman (2011). A few of the main
reasons are added here:
Difficult to measure: Most of the surveys dont collect information on total walking activity.
In many surveys short trips, non-work travelling, travel by children, recreational travel, and
non-motorized links are ignored.
Lower status: Walking is often attached with lower income group and motorized transport with
success and progress.
Low Cost: One of the vital reasons why walking is always overlooked as it is less expensive.
Improved walkability saves consumer costs, but such costs are difficult to be predicted and are
given less consideration.
Ignoring benefits: Conventional planning tends to ignore or undervalue benefits such as health
benefits, enjoyment of walking and cycling, improved mobility options for non-drivers. Many
models even ignores benefits like reduced congestion, parking cost savings and consumer cost
savings which results from mode shift.
Following table summarizes the categories of economic benefits and a brief description about
measuring techniques which must be considered while evaluating walking.
Table 4 Walkability Economic Impacts
Name
Description
Degree that walking provides mobility Travel modelling, analysis of

options, particularly for people who are travel options.
transportation disadvantaged.
Accessibility
Consumer
savings
Measuring Techniques
cost Degree to which walking provides

Consumer
consumer transportation cost savings. surveys
expenditure
Public cost savings Degree that walking substitutes for

(reduced external
vehicle travel and reduces negative
impacts.
costs)
Determine to what degree

walking
reduces
motor
vehicle travel, and the
economic savings that result.
Degree that walking helps reduce the

amount of land used for roadway and
parking facilities, and helps create
more accessible, clustered land use.
Identify the full economic,

social and environmental
benefits of more pedestrianoriented land use.
Efficient land use
10
Livability
Public fitness and

health
Economic
development
Property values, business

Degree that walking improves the local activities, consume preference
environment.
surveys.
Travel and health surveys to
Degree that walking provides physical determine the number of
exercise to people who are otherwise people who benefit from
sedentary.
walking exercise.
Degree to which walking makes
commercial areas more attractive and Market surveys and property
shifts consumer expenditures to goods assessments.
Input-output
that provide more regional economic table analysis.
activity and employment.
indicators
Degree that walkability helps achieve Various
horizontal
various equity objectives.
and vertical equity.
Source: Litman (2011), Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
of
Equity
2.8 Evidences of Benefit Cost Ratio of cycling and walking projects in UK:
Physical activity is now evidently considered as a vital component of healthy lifestyle, reducing
morbidity and premature death. This reason has made it a best buy for public health (Morris,
1994). Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) of cycling and walking interventions is not currently
widespread but still a general acceptance is there among experts in many OECD (Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development) Countries that physical activity has many public
benefits in short as well as long term (WHO,2007). Few examples of walking and cycling
projects in UK and in other countries and their respective BCR have been added below:
CBA research for Department of Transport assessed a Canal Towpath in London which was
transformed into a high quality walking and cycling commuter use. It showed a BCR of 24.5:1
with a savings of 5,487,130 through absenteeism and a savings of 28,537,854 due to reduced
mortality. In 2005, Sustrans evaluated three links to schools in Bootle, Hartlepool and
Newhaven and found a BCR of 29.3:1, 32.5:1 and 14.9:1 respectively (Davis, 2010). In
November 2009 cycling England Researchers used the WHOs HEAT tool and estimated the
value of reduction in adult mortality and found a maximum annual benefit of 8.9 million per
annum (Sloman et al., 2009).
The main objective of this research projects is also to evaluate one such scheme of cycling and
walking intervention in Itchen River in Southampton using the concepts obtained from this
literature review regarding the quantification of cycling and walking benefits and along with
the appraisal guidance from DfT, Web TAG 3.14.1.
11
2.9 Site Location:

The Connect2 Southampton project, known as the Itchen Boardwalk, consists of a raised
walkway built on top of a wave wall which was installed in 2006 for protecting the railway line
from scouring action of the tidal river. It provides a north-south connection and is intended to
connect local people to the river and sea in order to make possible new local journeys to
schools, workplaces and leisure destinations. It fills the gap in the National Cycle Route
Network 23 in Southampton which links the Southampton airport, Swaythling, Riverside park,
St. Denys, St Marys, the city Centre and the ferry terminals (Ogilvie et al., 2012). Itchen
Boardwalk lies within the Bevois electoral ward comprising the suburbs of Bevois valley,
Nichols town, Northam with a population of 16,844 with 12,530 people in the age group of 18
to 64 (ONS, 2011). The route runs between the river and the railway line. An informal footpath
was previously used by the local residents for many users along the shore in order to avoid the
busy alternative route around the industrial area, but the footpath was not usable during high
tide and for cycling. The original plan was to construct an 800 m Boardwalk but the structure
built is 400 m long and 2.8 meters wide, made of a durable hardwood decking incorporating
an antiskid surfacing.
Figure 4 Itchen Riverside Boardwalk, Southampton.

At the end of this elevated walkway the users have to take a detour through an industrial estate
or use the old gravel-surfaced path further to reach the Northam Bridge which is intended to
be upgraded in future (Ogilvie et al., 2012).
12
Figure 5: Southern end of the walkway towards the Industrial area.
SURVEYS AT SITE LOCATION:

Board walk construction began in April 2010 and was completed on 22nd September 2010.
Survey data were collected prior to Boardwalk construction and post-completion in March
2011, at three locations along a 1.6 miles stretch of the Boardwalk. Three monitoring locations
as mentioned in the iConnect survey report are Riverside walkway, Riverside Park and Railway
Figure 6 Route User Survey Location at Itchen Boardwalk, Southampton.

crossing. For the evaluation of the walkway the data collected at the start point of the
Boardwalk is used in this study. The Survey was conducted on four days, three weekdays and
one weekend. Weekdays surveys were carried out over the peak periods of 7-9 am, 12-1 pm
and 4-6 pm, weekend was conducted on Saturday 10 am-1 pm. These count data doesnt
represents the whole days usage.
13
The Route user Intercept Survey count data conducted by the Sustrans at Riverside Walkway
both before and after the intervention is shown in the table below:
Table 5 Four day Southampton RUS count data
Riverside Walkway 2010
User
Category
Towards
Northern end
Towards Southern
end
Towards
Northern end
Towards
Southern end
19
24
30
A-M
124
182
A-F
32
52
E-M
13
E-F
Total Cyclists
13
19
193
281
Cyclist

User
Category
Towards
Northern end
Towards
Southern end
Towards
Northern end
Towards
Southern end
109
128
99
139
A-M
218
271
278
361
A-F
98
128
138
207
E-M
35
46
28
37
E-F
21
19
19
18
Total Pedestrians
481
592
562
762
Pedestrians
Note. C = child, A-M = adult male, A-F = adult female, E-M = elderly male, E-F = elderly
female.
Above survey data collected forms the basic data for our further Evaluation of the Itchen
Boardwalk scheme.
14
3. Methodology
The procedure for economic evaluation of benefits is followed as per the guidelines given in
the Transport Appraisal Guidance (TAG) Unit 3.14.1, Appraisal for walking and cycling
schemes. The Appraisal summary table as given by DfT appraisal guidance (TAG Unit 3.14.1)
is divided into five objective categories:
Environment
Safety
Economy
Accessibility
Integration
Sub-objectives under these main objectives are divided as follow:

Environment noise, local air quality, greenhouse gases, landscape, townscape, biodiversity,
heritage of historic resources, water environment, physical fitness, journey ambience
Safety accidents, security
Economy public accounts, transport economic efficiency, reliability, wider economic impacts
Accessibility option value, severance, access to the transport system
Integration transport interchange, land use policy, other government policies
For this cycling and walking scheme the monetized cost and benefits from table 1 in TAG Unit
3.14 as shown the next page has been used.
15
Table 6 Modified Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits Table
Noise
Local Air Quality
Greenhouse Gases
Journey Ambience
Accidents
Physical Fitness
Consumer Users
Business Users and Providers
Present
Value of
Benefits (PVB)
Public
Accounts
Present
Value of
Costs (PVC)
OVERALL IMPACTS
Net Present Value (NPV)
Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR)
NPV=PVB-PVC
BCR=PVB/PVC
16
There are four key indicators which are used for the evaluation of different benefits related to
cycling and walking schemes. The indicators and the benefits to which it is used is shown in
the table below:
Table 7 Indicators used for the economic appraisal of walking and cycling schemes
Indicator
Used for appraising
Cycling and walking users
Journey ambience
New individuals cycling or walking
Health and Journey ambience
Car kilometers saved
CO2 emissions
Noise reduction benefits
Local air quality
Travel time (decongestion benefits)
Fuel tax revenue
User cost (Fuel and Vehicle operating cost)
Commuter trips
Health (absenteeism)
3.1 Estimation of Cycling and walking users:

The generation of cycling and walking users is estimated by considering two scenarios, a core
scenario and with intervention scenario. A core scenario is the forecasting of the growth in
users in the intervention location without walkway. Since sufficient survey data is not available
for the growth rate in cycling and walking in Itchen walkway location in the past few years, we
can consider the growth rate in the core scenario to be same as that of the growth rate in cycling
and walking in Southampton and at national average respectively. The growth rate assumed for
cycling is 9.2% (SCC, 2011) and for walking it is 1% (DfT, 2012a), every year a single cyclist
and three pedestrians are added until 2015 for the core scenario. With intervention scenario
is the case where the users are estimated after the construction of walkway. The growth rate of
the users in the with intervention case can be obtained from the pre and post RUS count data
shown in table 5. This growth rate is assumed for five years till 2015 and for the remaining
appraisal period the users are assumed to be same each year i.e no growth in the users after
2015, so every year 111 cyclists and 63 pedestrians are added until 2015. The users generated
in cycling and walking is obtained by subtracting the users in the core scenario for the forecast
number of users under the with intervention scenario.
Growth rate in cycling assumed for the core Scenario is obtained as shown below:
Daily cycling trips count in Southampton (2009/10) =5618
17
Daily Cycling trips in Southampton (2010/11) = 6251

Daily Cycling trips in Southampton (2011/12) =6935
(SCC, 2011)
Hence, the percentage increase in the cycling trips for the year 2010 and 2011 comes out to be
7.5% and 10.9% respectively. The growth rate assumed for the core scenario in this study is
the average of both years.
Total number of cyclists from four day usage count in 2010= 13+19=32 (Refer Table 5)
Single day usage =8
Total number of cyclists from four day usage count in 2011=193+281=474 (Refer Table 5)
Single day usage =119
Growth in cyclist for with intervention Scenario= 119-8=111.
So every year 111 cyclists are assumed to be added until 2015 and assumed to remain stagnant
from 2015 to the end of the appraisal period.
Growth in cyclist for Core Scenario= 9.2% of 8= 0.74. Thus every year single cyclist is
assumed to be added till 2015.
Similarly, single day usage for pedestrians in 2010 and 2011 form the RUS count obtained is
268 and 331 respectively. The growth in the numbers for the pedestrians is also calculated in a
similar way as that for the cyclist done above.
The number of new individuals cycling and walking is obtained from the difference between
the users generated in two consecutive years. The usage estimation till 2020 is shown in the
table below. The complete details of the generated users and the new individuals cycling and
walking is attached in Appendix A.
Table 8 Number of users generated through the intervention
Year Users per day with Users per day
intervention
Core scenario
Users generated by New

Individuals
intervention
added each year
Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclists Pedestrians

2010 8
268
268
2011 119
331
271
110
60
110
60
2012 230
394
10
274
220
120
110
60
2013 341
457
11
277
330
180
110
60
18
2014 452
520
12
280
440
240
110
60
2015 563
583
13
283
550
300
110
60
2016 563
583
13
283
550
300
2017 563
583
13
283
550
300
2018 563
583
13
283
550
300
2019 563
583
13
283
550
300
2020 563
583
13
283
550
300
3.2 Estimation of Car kilometers saved:

Car kilometers saved from the walkway is estimated on the basis of the number of users who
previously travelled through car in the adjacent roads and now got shifted to either cycling or
walking modes. The users origin and destination locations are different for each user. For the
calculation purpose, the average trip length by each user is assumed to be the distance between
Horseshoe Bridge and Northam Bridge, which is 0.9 kilometer through the walkway and 2.1
kilometers through Bevois Valley Road (A 335). Distances are calculated using the Google
distance calculator. It is also assumed that the car users before shifting to cycling and walking
modes used the Bevois Valley Road for travelling from Horseshoe Bridge to Northam Bridge.
The proportion of current users who travelled through car before the construction of walkway
is obtained from two surveys done in 2010 and 2012 by Emily White and Wenbo Cui
respectively, for their research projects. Emilys survey report tells that 4.7% of the cyclists
and 2.8% of the pedestrians in the walkaway stated that they used car for travelling before the
construction of the walkway. Another survey conducted by Wenbo Cui in 2012 tells that 2.8%
of the cyclists and 5.6% of the pedestrians in the walkway used car previously. Hence for this
research, the proportion of users who got shifted from car mode is assumed to be the average
of both survey reports, which comes out to be 3.75% and 4.2 % for cyclists and pedestrians
respectively. For the calculation of car kilometers saved, the number of cycling and walking
users generated in the core and with intervention scenario are multiplied with the average
trip length, and former is subtracted from the later. The estimation of car kilometers for the
appraisal period is done as per the guidelines given in paragraph 5.2.7 TAG Unit 3.1.4.1. The
calculation for the first year is shown below:
For year 2011,
Number of cycling trips expected in core scenario (per day, 2011) = 9
Number of cycling trips expected under with intervention scenario (per day, 2011) =119
Users generated= 110
19
Mean trip length in Km per trip (2011) =2.1 Kms.

Total trip kilometers= 2.1*110=231 Kms.
Car kilometers saved from per day usage= 3.75% of 231= 8.7 Kms.
Car Kilometers saved for the year 2011= 8.7*365= 3161.8 Kms.
Similarly for pedestrians
Mean trip length in Km per day (2011) = 2.1 Kms.
Users generated= 60.
Total trip Kilometers= 2.1*60=126 Kms.
Car Kilometers saved from per day usage= 4.2% of 126= 5.29 Kms.
Car Kilometers saved for the year 2011= 5.29*365= 1931.58 Kms.
Total car kilometers saved from both users = 5093 Kms.
Car Kilometers saved for the remaining appraisal period is shown in Appendix B.
3.3 Estimation of Commuter trips:

Commuter trips are defined as those trips made by individuals travelling from home to work
or from work to home (DfT, 2011a). For the estimation of commuter trips for the intervention,
the proportion of route users saying travelling from work and to work has been considered from
the RUS journey characteristics data obtained. The RUS journey Characteristics obtained from
the RUS survey conducted at Itchen walkway gives the percentage of commuters travelling in
the Itchen Riverside in 2010 (pre intervention) and 2011 ( post intervention). But the survey
results obtained shows a drastic decrease in percentage of commuters in the Boardwalk
comparing to 2010. It shows a decrease of 34% from 37% in 2010 to 3% commuters in 2011.
Thus for the scheme evaluation purpose the percentage of commuters out of the total users
generated through intervention is taken from the travel survey conducted by Southampton City
Council in 2011. Thousand five hundred interviews were conducted through computer aided
telephoning interview with Southampton residents. This survey shows that out of all the
walking trips done, 16 % is towards working and similarly for cycling it is 13% towards work
(SCC, 2011b). Considering this as the commuter percentage for the appraisal of the scheme we
shall assume 16% of the pedestrians generated and 13% of the cyclists generated through
intervention fall under commuter category and this remains same throughout the appraisal
period.
Cyclists generated in the year 2011= 110, Commuters= 13%*110=14
Pedestrians generated in the year 2011=60, Commuters =16%*60= 10
The detailed estimation of commuters for the entire appraisal period is shown in Appendix E.
20
4. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Results

4.1 Capital cost and Recurring Maintenance cost:
The Project cost includes investment costs (design and construction) and operating costs
(maintenance).
Investment: 1,500,000 of which 450,000 from Big Lottery Fund (SCC, 2011c).
Any other developer contributions along with the Capital investment is deducted from it and
the deducted cost value is used in the Cost-Benefit analysis (Table 12, TAG Unit 3.14.1).
Scheme Capital cost after deducting the fund from Big Lottery Fund= 1,050,000.
Appraisal period used is 30 years.
Maintenance cost: 10,000 per annum (Assumed value).
21
4.2 Evaluation of Benefits from the scheme:

4.2.1 Environmental benefits
Environment related benefits are monetized considering the benefits from noise reduction,
improved local air quality and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions especially carbon
dioxide. Noise and local air quality benefits are monetized following the method in TAG units
3.3.2 and 3.3.3 respectively. Marginal External costs (MEC) approach for calculating
decongestion benefits is used as per the guidance for estimating the benefits from all above
impacts.
Car kilometers saved due to considerable mode shift as a result of the Intervention have been
calculated. The number of car kilometers taken off from the road helps in reducing congestion.
The Marginal External Cost is the cost imposed on society by adding a marginal vehicle to the
road. MEC for other users of the road is calculated from the change in delay time and change
in vehicle resource cost (TAG Unit 3.9.5). Congestion is an important aspect which affect the
above two factors mentioned. At low congestion level, the impact is less but at high congestion
the impact on travel time and vehicle operating cost is high (TAG Unit 3.9.5). The Values of
time and the Vehicle operating cost used are as per the cost given in TAG unit 3.5.6. The
benefits of decongestion related to Travel time and Vehicle operating cost will be estimated
later in Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits. Now we shall look at the estimation of
benefits from Noise reduction, Local air quality, and Greenhouse gases.
Calculation through Marginal External cost Approach:

First step for the calculation of decongestion benefits involves estimation of car kilometers
taken off from the road as a result of the implementation of any scheme. As per the previous
calculation done the number of car kilometers saved in 2011 is 3162 and 1932 kilometers from
both Cycling and walking respectively (calculated for 365 days in a year). Car kilometers saved
for each year from 2011 till 2040 has been estimated and the details are attached in the
Appendix B.
The Marginal External Costs for Congestion, Local Air quality, Noise, and Greenhouse gases
are taken from the Spreadsheet 2 from TAG Unit 3.9.5. These values are classified on the basis
of Congestion level, Area, and Road type. While looking at the traffic routes immediately
affected by the Itchen Boardwalk are Thomas Lewis Way, Bevois valley Road, which comes
under A335 road type and Empress and Imperial road which comes under other roads. Let us
assume the car kilometers saved due to the Itchen walkway is solely from A335 road and
neglect the other roads. This route comes under urban category population>10,000 (Rural and
urban classification of Southampton, 2004). Road type is Class A Principal road in urban area
(PU) (DfT, 2012). Traffic detail in this road is collected from the traffic counter at Bevois
Valley Road (Counter Point ID: 99872).
22
Traffic data for the year 2011 from this location is shown in the table below:
Table 9: Traffic count data in Bevois valley Road
DfT, 2012b Traffic Count
AADF Start
End
Link
Pedal Motorcycle Cars
Year
Junction Junction length Cycle
2011
A33
A3035
2.1
km
416
231
Buses LGV
14,236 206
HGV Total
2,448 318
Table 10: PCU factors for conversion are used from Table B4 in TAG Unit 3.9.5.
Vehicle type
PCU Factor
Car
1.0
Light Goods Vehicle
1.0
Rigid Goods Vehicle
1.9
Public Service Vehicle
2.5
Artic Goods Vehicle
2.9
PCU factors used for Cycles and Motorcycles are 0.2 and 0.4 (TRL, 2003). The congestion
band is obtained from the ratio of Actual traffic flow (V) to the Theoretic maximum traffic
flow (C). Both the traffic flows are expressed in terms of PCU per lane km per hour. The
Annual Average Daily Flow obtained from the traffic count data is 17,439. After converting to
Passenger Car Units it is equal to 18,039 PCUs. The link length is 2.1 kilometers. The
suggested average capacities for different road and area types are given in Table B3 TAG Unit
3.9.5. The 2011 census population of Southampton is 236,900 (HCC, 2011), therefore the area
type is 4 (Population 25k to 250k). Therefore, A road under type 4 area has a capacity flow of
700 PCU per lane km per hour (Table 7, TAG Unit 3.9.5).
Actual traffic flow=18039/ (2*2.1km*24hrs) =179 PCU/lane km/hour.
Congestion band Type=179/700=0.26 which comes under Type 2 congestion band, from Table
5 TAG Unit 3.9.5.
The marginal External cost of congestion for A roads under other urban category is obtained
from the spreadsheet 2 in TAG Unit 3.9.5 and is equal to 1.9 p/car km. The cost values are
given from 2010 to 2035 (Table 2, Appendix C). The missing values from 2011 till 2034 are
obtained through interpolation between two nearest values. The spreadsheet 2 is attached in
Appendix C.
23
17,439
The Marginal External Cost benefits calculated for Congestion, Noise, Air quality, and
Greenhouse gases are found to be 16,151, 1,885, 178, and 5,633 respectively. Detailed
calculation attached in Appendix C.
4.2.2 Journey ambience benefits:

It forms an important consideration during the appraisal of walking and cycling schemes. This
value depends on the infrastructure and environmental quality of the journey along with safety
associated with it. The benefits from the journey ambience is subjected to rule of half- that
is the benefits for the new users (new to Cycling) is divided to half and the old users will enjoy
the full benefits of the improvements in journey ambience (TAG Unit 3.14.1 Para 1.9.1). The
monetary values for improved environment quality, comfort and convenience and perceived
improvements to safety are obtained from Table 4 of TAG unit 3.14.1 which has been shown
below:
Table 11 Summary of value of journey ambience benefit of different types of cycle
facility relative to no facilities
Scheme type
Value
Source
Off-road segregated cycle track
4.73p/min
Hopkinson & Wardman (1996)
On-road segregated cycle lane
2.01p/min
On-road non-segregated cycle lane
2p/min
Wardman et al (1997)
Wider lane
1.22p/min
Shared bus lane
0.52p/min
Secure cycle parking facilities
66p
Changing and shower facilities
14p
Cycling schemes
These values have been obtained from various researches done in the past related to cycling
schemes. While looking at the Itchen Riverside Boardwalk, two of the above benefits are
clearly applied to the scheme which includes:
a) Off road segregated cycle path.
b) Wider lane.
24
As we know that before the construction of this Boardwalk most of the users used other roads
adjacent to this route and the old path at this location before Boardwalk construction was a
narrow footpath which was not accessible during high tides. So comparing to the previous
locations this Boardwalk is a traffic free cycle path and has a wider lane. The values given in
the table which equals to 4.73 p/min and 1.22 p/min for off road segregated path and wider
lane respectively. The total journey ambience benefits for cyclists are estimated by multiplying
the above values with the total time spent by the cyclists in this Boardwalk. The time spent by
each cyclist on the walkway is calculated from the distance of the Boardwalk and the average
speed of a cyclist. The total path length from Horseshoe Bridge to Northam Bridge is 0.9
Kilometer through the industrial area. Assuming the speed of each cyclist to be 13 km/hr
(CILT, 2011), the time spent on the Boardwalk for each trip (or cyclist) is 4.2 minutes.
The journey ambience benefits is subjected to Rule of half only for those users who are new
to cycling as they value the new facilities more than the old users. The RUS survey report from
Sustrans in the walkway gives information about the cycling experience of the users, which
shows that 0% of the users are new cyclists. Hence the journey ambience benefits calculated
for the users generated is fully enjoyed by them and is not subjected to Rule of half.
Number of users generated for the year 2011 is 110.
Journey ambience benefits for the users= {4.2 minutes x (4.73+1.22) x 110 x 365}/100
= 10,034.
Total journey ambience benefits from cyclists for the entire appraisal period= 1,404,688.
Details of the ambience benefit calculation for the entire appraisal period is attached in
Appendix D.
Ambience benefits for walking:

The monetary values for journey ambience benefits is taken from Table 5 in TAG Unit 3.14.1,
which is from Heuman (2005) values, used before in evaluation of the strategic walk network
in London. Those values are mentioned in the table below:
Table 12 Values of different aspects of the pedestrian environment used in the evaluation of
the London Strategic Walk Network
Scheme type
Value
Source
Street lighting
3.4 p/km
Heuman (2005)
Crowding
1.7 p/km
Heuman (2005)
Kerb level
2.4 p/km
Heuman (2005)
Information panels
0.8 p/km
Heuman (2005)
25
Pavement evenness
0.8 p/km
Heuman (2005)
Directional signage
0.5 p/km
Heuman (2005)
Benches
0.5 p/km
Heuman (2005)
Figure 7 and figure 8 below shows the location of Itchen walkway pre and post intervention
which are an evidence for the improvement in pavement evenness. As the earlier path was an
earthen footpath and unsafe to travel during high tides.
Figure 7 Itchen Riverside footpath before the construction of walkway in 2010.
Figure 8 The Itchen walkway after construction in 2011.

Figure 9 shows the directional signage and information panels at the walkway which
increases the attraction of both pedestrians and cyclists.
26
Figure 9 Directional Signage and Information panels at the walkway.

For the evaluation of absenteeism benefits for walkers, the values for pavement evenness,
directional signage and information panels are taken from the table.
The journey ambience benefit values for pedestrian facilities are given in pence per kilometer
travelled. The distance used for the evaluation is 0.9 kilometer as mentioned earlier in the
journey ambience calculation for cyclists. The number of pedestrians generated from the
previous usage estimation comes out to be 60 for the year 2011.
Journey ambience benefits for old users (pedestrians) = {0.9 x (0.8+0.8+0.5) x 60 x 365}/100
= 412.
Total Journey ambience benefits from walking= 57,947.
Total Journey Ambience benefits for both cycling and walking is 1,462,635.
The journey ambience benefits calculated for the entire appraisal period is shown in
Appendix D.
27
4.2.3 Health benefits for new cycling and walking facilities:

Health benefits or Physical fitness benefits are calculated by estimating the number of
preventable deaths per person who take moderate amount of physical exercise through walking
or cycling. The value of life used in this calculation is taken from the Highways Economics
Note 1 2005 (DfT, 2007).
Table 13 Value of prevention per casualty
June 2005
Injury Severity
Lost output
Human cost
Medical
and Total
Ambulance
Fatal
490,960
936,380
840
1,428,180
Hence the value of a life when prevented from death is the sum of lost output from the person
to this society, personal human cost and the medical and ambulance expenses, which comes
out to be around 1.43 million per person. Since this value is in 2005 price level, the value for
2011 is obtained by increasing it in line with real GDP growth per capita (Para 1.10.4, TAG
Unit 3.14.1). The GDP growth rate per head during the appraisal period is taken from Table
3a, TAG unit 3.5.6. The mean distance travelled in the route of the cyclist is assumed to be 0.9
kilometer. The average number of days travelled in this Boardwalk is assumed to be 220 days
in a year (considering only the working days and leaving the public holidays and weekends).
The benefits are calculated on the basis of a single trip length, as there is no data available from
the survey which shows that how many trips are made by a single user in a day. The
Copenhagen Centre for Prospective Population studies has found from a research that cycling
for three hours per week or 36 minutes per day reduces the risk for all-cause mortality to 72%
(Para 1.10.5, TAG Unit 3.14.1). The distance travelled is assumed to be 0.9 Kilometer per trip
and the average speed of a cyclist is 13 km/hour (CILT, 2011) and for a pedestrian 5 km/hour
(Galloway, 2005). From these data the time spent by each cyclist and a pedestrian can be
calculated. The time spent on the walkway is used to calculate the reduction in risk for allcause mortality of the users.
Reduced Mortality benefit calculation for cyclist (year 2011):
Calculating mean distance travelled per annum
Mean distance travelled on route
0.9 Km/trip.
Time spent on the walkway through cycling
4.2 minutes/trip
For spending 36 minutes the risk reduces by 72% (from Copenhagen study)
Hence, from having 4.2 minutes of physical activity, risk to death reduces to 97% (Linear
interpolation).
The Percentage of life saved =100-97= 3%.
Similarly for walking, the time spent in the walkway is 11 minutes (=0.9 km/5km per hour).
28
The reduction in risk to death is 91% obtained from linear interpolation with Copenhagen study
results.
The Percentage of life saved=100-91= 9%.
Calculation of Reduced mortality benefit from cycling (2011)
Mean proportion of England and Wales population aged 15-64 who
die each year from all causes =(78,038/36,961,800) *100
0.211
(ONS 2011)
Health benefits are estimated for the new individuals added (Para 5.5.6, TAG Unit 3.14.1)
Number of new Cyclists added each year from the scheme
110
Expected deaths in this population= 0.211*110 (new users
23.21
Lives saved (in year 2011) = Expected death in the user population* Percentage of life saved
from cycling
23.21*0.03
=0.7
Cost of a life (Source: DfT, Cost at 2011 price level) =
1,415,372
Reduced mortality benefits (in year 2011) = 1,415,372*0.7
990,760
Total Reduced Mortality benefits from Cycling for the appraisal period = 5,032,038.
Calculation of Reduced mortality benefit from walking (2011)
Number of new individuals walking in the year 2011
60
Expected death in the population= 0.211*60
12.66
Life saved = 12.66*0.09=
1.14
Reduced mortality benefits (in year 2011) =1,415,372*1.14=
1,612,675.
Total Reduced Mortality benefits from walking for the appraisal period= 8,234,244.
Detailed calculation tables for both cycling and walking for the appraisal period is attached in
Appendix E.
4.2.4 Estimating Absenteeism benefits from Cycling and Walking:

This benefit comes under business benefits rather than consumer benefits, as this comes from
the reduction in sick leave from work for employees who do some physical activity as a result
of walking and cycling during their commuting. This benefit is calculated using the method
shown in para 1.11, TAG unit 3.14.1. This method was previously used in Transport for
London (2004). In the USA, physical activity programmes involving 30 minutes of exercise a
29
day showed a reduction of 6% to 32% in short term sick leave (WHO, 2003). In UK the average
absence rate of employees in 2010 was 6.5 days per employee, only a marginal change from a
record low of 6.4 days in 2009 of which 94% is accounted for short term sick leave (CBI,
2011). This survey was done by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) 2011, where
organizations responding came from throughout the UK and were asked to submit the absence
data from January to December 2010. The relation between physical activity and reduced
absenteeism is assumed to be linear (Davis, 2011).
For cycling and walking the physical activity time per day for this scheme is assumed to be 4.2
minutes and 11 minutes per day in 2011 and assuming same for the remaining appraisal period.
Thus for 4.2 minutes of cycling per trip 5 days a week would reduce the short term sick leave
from 0.84% to 4.5% and for walking 11 minutes per trip would reduce short term sick leave
from 2.2% to 11.7%. Considering the minimum values for both cycling and walking the
absenteeism benefits is calculated below:
For Cycling:
Average short term sick leave in UK= 94% of 6.5 days per employee= 6.11 days.
Annual benefit to the employer due to reduction in short term sick leave = 0.84% of 6.11 days
=0.051 days gross salary cost.
For Walking:
Annual benefit to the employer due to reduction in short term sick leave = 2.2% of 6.11 days.
=0.134 days gross salary cost.
The average gross salary per day is calculated from the cost figures given in table 1 TAG Unit
3.5.6. It gives the value of working time per person in per hour in 2010 price level. Since the
individuals value of working time decides the employers wage rate paid (TAG Unit 3.5.6, Para
1.2.3), this value is taken as the wage rate paid for an average working person. The market
price value of average working person is used in the calculation. This value is assumed to grow
in line with GDP growth rate per head for the remaining appraisal period as given in table 3
TAG Unit 3.5.6. The average working hours is taken as 7.3 hours/day (Source: ONS Labor
Force survey), which is the average usual working hours for all sectors in United Kingdom in
2011. This is assumed to be same for the remaining appraisal period. These benefits are
calculated only for the commuters in the Itchen Boardwalk those who are working and not for
the entire users generated by the Intervention. The number of commuters has been estimated
previously.
Average salary of all working persons per day = 34.12 per hour* 7.3
= 249.1 per day (Year 2010)
The value is in 2010 price level which can be converted to 2011 price level by using a CPI
inflation index of 1.045 (DfT, 2012d). Hence, the salary for 2011 is equal to
260.31=249.1*1.045.
30
Reduced absenteeism benefits from cycling commuters for 2011=260.31*0.051 days

= 13.27 per cyclist commuter.
Number of cycling commuters in 2011= 14.3
For the total cycling commuters generated
Reduced absenteeism benefits= (14.3*13.27) = 189.73
Similarly from walking commuters the benefits for 2011 comes out to be 334.66.
Total Reduced absenteeism benefits from cycling and walking is 35,206 and 62,099
respectively. Total benefits from absenteeism reduction are 97,305 for the entire appraisal
period. Detailed calculation per year can be seen in Appendix E.
4.2.5 Accident reduction benefits:

Accident benefits for the scheme is obtained in two ways. At first it is estimated from the
improvement in safety for the cyclists who shifted to the walkway from adjacent roads thereby
travelling in traffic free mode. Secondly, the benefits also comes from reduction in the number
of accidents in adjacent roads as a result of shifting from car mode to either cycling or walking.
The reduction in car kilometers results in reduction of accidents and consequently helps in
assigning a positive value to the appraisal (TAG Unit 3.14.1, Para 5.5.14). The value of life for
accident appraisal is taken from Table 3, TAG Unit 3.4.1 (The Accident Sub-Objective) which
gives the average value of prevention of road accidents by severity and element of cost. The
prices are given in 2009 price level and they increase with respect to the growth rate in GDP
per capita. The accident prevention value as per severity of the accident is shown in the table
below:
Table 14 Accident prevention values as per severity of accidents
Average value of prevention of
road accidents by severity
June 2009
2011
Severity
Total
Fatal
1,790,203
1,812,745
Serious Injury
205,056
207,638
Slight Injury
21,372
21,641
Accident reduction benefits from shifting of cyclists from other routes:

The proportion of cyclists shifting from adjacent roads to the walkway can travel free of traffic
and are less subjected to be hit by a motorized vehicle. The results of an Intervention survey
31
done by Wenbo Cui (University of Southampton) in 2012 shows that 21.7% of the cyclists in
the Boardwalk said that they used to travel through other routes before the construction of the
Boardwalk. It is assumed that these cyclists used the adjacent roads closer to the walkway
which includes Bevois Valley Road, Thomas Levis Way Onslow Road and other smaller roads
close to the Boardwalk. The accident report of cyclists in these roads since 2005 is obtained
from the Department for Transport Road Accident Map website and the number of reported
incidents are shown in the table below:
Table 15 Accident report for cyclists in the roads adjacent to the Boardwalk since 2005, DfT
2012h.
Thomas Lewis Bevois Valley Onslow Road
Way
road
Empress Road
Mount Pleasant
Road
Slight Serious Slight Serious Slight Serious Slight Serious Slight Serious
2005
2006
2007
1
1
2008
2009
3
1
2010
1
1
2011
2
1
1
2
Count data regarding total number of cyclists in these roads is obtained from the traffic counter
at Bevois Valley Road (Counter Point ID: 99872). The Annual Average Daily Flow of cyclists
and the percentage of accidents with respect to the flow is shown in the table below:
Table 16 Number of cyclists in Bevois Valley Road, Southampton Traffic count (DfT, 2012b)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Number of cyclists in
A335
AADF
Yearly
93075
255
146365
401
122275
335
136875
375
136875
375
137605
377
151840
416
Total Accidents
Slight
Serious
2
0
3
1
4
1
4
0
4
0
1
2
3
0
Average
32
Accident Percentage
Slight
Serious
0.0021488
0
0.0020497
0.00068
0.0032713
0.00082
0.0029224
0
0.0029224
0
0.0007267
0.00145
0.0019758
0
0.0023
0.0004
Results from above table shows that 0.0023% and 0.00045% of the cyclists in A335 (which
includes Thomas Lewis Way, Bevois Valley Road and Onslow Road) are subjected to slight
and serious accident injuries. Therefore a similar proportion of the cyclists who shifted to the
walkway are reducing the incidents of slight and serious injuries.
Estimation of accident reduction benefits:
Number of current cyclists in the Boardwalk in 2011= 119
Assuming 21.7 % of them shifted from adjacent roads, the number of cyclists=26
The proportion of these users reducing slight injuries= 0.0023% *26=0.000598
Value of preventing a road accident for slight injury (2011) = 21,641 (Highways Economic
Note 1, DfT 2007)
Benefits from preventing slight injury accident in 2011= 21,641*0.000598= 12.94.
Value of preventing a serious injury road accident (2011) = 207,638.
Proportion of users reducing serious injuries= 0.0004%*26=0.000104.
Benefits from preventing serious injury road accident= 207,638*0.000104= 21.59.
Total benefits from accident reduction from cyclists shifted for the entire appraisal period is
6027. The detailed calculation for each year is shown in Appendix H.
Accident reduction benefits from car kilometers saved:

The car kilometres removed from the road as a result of the construction of the Boardwalk also
helps to reduce road accidents. The car kilometres removed as a result of shifting from car
modes has been calculated initially. The car kilometres taken off is assumed to be from A335
road link starting from junction A3035 and ending in junction A33 which includes Thomas
Lewis Way, Bevois Valley Road and Onslow Road. The Annual Average Daily Flow data of
cars in this road link is obtained from the traffic counter at Bevois Valley Road , Counter Point
ID: 99872 (SCC, 2012) The accident report of cars in this road link since 2005 is obtained from
the Department for Transport Road Accident Map website and is shown in the table below:
Table 17 Number of incidents per million car kilometres in A335 road link
Per million car
kilometres
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
AADF
13951
13993
14373
14057
14366
14279
14236
yearly
Link
flow
length
5092115
2.1
5107445
2.1
5246145
2.1
5130805
2.1
5243590
2.1
5211835
2.1
5196140
2.1
Yearly Car
kilometres Slight Serious
10693441.5
9
1
10725634.5
10
3
11016904.5
20
0
10774690.5
16
3
11011539
19
3
10944853.5
15
2
10911894
10
1
33
Fatal
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
Average
Slight Serious Fatal

0.841
0.093
0
0.935
0.28
0
1.82
0 0.091
1.5
0.28 0.093
1.73
0.273
0
1.38
0.183
0
0.917
0.092
0
1.3
0.172 0.026
The average value for number of the incidents per million car kilometers is calculated by the
past 7 years data from 2005. The average incident values are shown in the table above. This
value is used for the calculation of accident reduction benefits for the appraisal period.
Calculation of accident reduction benefits from car kilometres removed for the year 2011:
Number of car kilometres saved in 2011= 5093 (Refer Appendix B)
Proportion of slight injury in this car kilometres saved= (1.3/1000000)*5093=0.0066
Accident prevention value for slight injury=21,641.
Benefits from slight injury reduction=21,641*0.0066=142.
Proportion of serious injury in the car kilometres saved= (0.172/1000000)*5093=0.00088
Accident prevention value for serious injury=207,638
Benefits from serious injury reduction=207,638*0.00088=182.72
Proportion of Fatal injury in the car kilometres saved= (0.026/1000000)*5093=0.00013
Accident prevention value for serious injury=1,812,745
Benefits from serious injury reduction=1,812,745*0.00013=235.66.
Total accident reduction benefits from car kilometres saved for the entire appraisal period is
equal to 104,888.
Detailed calculation shown in Appendix H.
34
4.2.6 Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits:

These benefits for cycling and walking scheme are assessed using the Transport Economic
Efficiency (TEE) table 2 given in TAG Unit 3.14.1. For cycling and walking schemes some
entries are not applicable in this table. The TEE benefits can be divided into two categories.
Firstly, the benefits enjoyed by the user itself as a result of reduction in travel time and/or
vehicle operating cost as a result of introducing short distances or by switching from car mode.
Secondly, the benefits enjoyed by other road users due to a significant reduction in motorized
traffic known as Business users benefits. These benefits are calculated in the form of
decongestion benefits using the method described in MSA: Decongestion Benefits (TAG Unit
3.9.5).
TEE benefits for Consumers:
Consumers here refer to those cyclists and pedestrians who benefit from reducing their
travelling time and/or vehicle operating cost by shifting from other roads to the riverside
walkway. For the above benefit calculation let us consider the travel between two key locations
close to the Boardwalk such as Horseshoe Bridge and Northam Bridge. Now we shall analyze
the changes in distance and travelling time between these locations through different modes
before and after the construction of Itchen Boardwalk.
For Cyclists and Pedestrians:
Cyclists who travelled from Horseshoe Bridge to Northam Bridge before the Itchen Boardwalk
they had to travel though the adjacent Empress road. Distance between these two locations
through empress road is 1.77 km (approx.) and through Boardwalk it is 0.9 km (Google
distance calculator tool). The national average cycling speed ranges 13 km/hr to 16 km/hr
(CILT, 2011) and the average walking speed for an adult is 5 km/hour (Galloway, 2005). So a
normal cyclist travelling through Empress Road takes 8.2 minutes, but through the walkway it
takes only 4.2 minutes and for a pedestrian the time taken is 21 minutes and 10.8 minutes
respectively. From the above calculation we can see that for a cyclist the reduction in travelling
time is 4 minutes and for a pedestrian it is 10 minutes.
The results from the Intervention survey done by Wenbo Cui (University of Southampton) in
2012 shows that 21.7% of the cyclists after intervention said that they used to travel through
other routes before the construction of the walkway and 29.2 % of the pedestrians used other
roads for travelling. Assuming a similar proportion for the users generated in the future years
the value of journey time saved for each cyclist and pedestrian can be calculated. The value of
time for a cyclist and pedestrian is divided into working and non-working values. Value of
travelling time during working hours is a cost to the employers business and these values are
taken from table 1 in TAG Unit 3.5.6. Time spent during commuting and other purpose is
known as Non-Working time and the value for this time is obtained from table 2 in TAG Unit
3.5.6. The values of Non-Working time for cycling and walking is twice the values mentioned
in the table 2 (Para 1.2.20 TAG Unit 3.5.6). Since these values are given in 2010 price level
they are converted to 2011 price level using CPI measure. The growth percentage per annum
for both Working and Non-Working Values of time are taken from Table 3b TAG Unit 3.5.6.
Since the entire journey trips done is not solely for the work, we shall assume journey purpose
35
related to work constitutes 5% and Non-Working purpose like Commuting and Other
journeys constitute 95%.
Table 18: Working and Nonworking Value of time.
Price per person
Working Value Non-Working

Working
Nonof
time,/hr, Value of time, Value
of Working
2010
/hr, 2010
time, /min, Value
of
2011
time, /min,
2011
Cyclist
21.7
24.34
0.38
0.42
Pedestrian
37.83
24.34
0.66
0.42
In 2011,
Time saved by each cyclist who shifted from adjacent road =4 minute
Number of cyclists shifted= 24 (=21.7% of 110)
Benefits from travel time saving= {(0.05*0.38+0.95*0.42)*4}*24= 39.9
Travel time saved by pedestrian=10 minutes.
Number of pedestrians shifted= 18 (=29.2% of 60)
Benefits from Travel time saving= {(0.05*0.66+0.95*0.42)*10}*18= 75.69.
Using the same method for the remaining appraisal period the travel time reduction benefits
for cycling is 7,406 and for pedestrians is 14,044.
Total benefits = 21,450.
The detailed calculation for the remaining period of the appraisal is shown in the Appendix F.
Benefits from Vehicle operating cost:

For car users:
Vehicle operating cost savings comes from reducing the Fuel and Non-fuel Vehicle operating
cost. These benefits are calculated from the car kilometers saved due to shifting from car mode
to either cycling or walking. Car kilometers saved have been calculated previously and is
attached in Appendix B. Vehicle operating cost is calculated as per the guidelines given in
TAG Unit 3.5.6.
The average vehicle speed for the vehicles in A-335 road is assumed to be equivalent to 31.9
miles/hour (51.4 km/hour) which is the yearly average vehicle speed in 2011 for the vehicles
36
in Hampshire authority managed A roads (DfT, 2012c). With this average speed the car users
travelling from Horseshoe Bridge to Northam Bridge would have taken a journey time of 2.5
minutes in 2010.
Vehicle operating costs (VOCs) are separated into fuel VOCs and non-fuel VOCs. The method
of calculating both costs are described below.
Vehicle Operating Cost-Fuel:
The values for cars are divided into three categories on the basis of the energy source used. The
energy source can be either fuel (petrol and diesel) or Electricity for electric car. Fuel
consumption is calculated from the formula given below (TAG unit 3.5.6, Para 1.3.9):
L=a/v+b+c.v+d.v2
Where, L=consumption, expressed in litres/km;
V=average speed in km/hour; and
a, b, c, d are parameters defined for each vehicle category.
For electric cars energy consumption is proportional to distance travelled but independent of
speed. Hence it is equal to b parameter in the fuel consumption formula with all other
parameters zero. These cost parameters decrease with increase in fuel efficiency. The
percentage improvement in vehicle efficiency every year is taken form Table 13 TAG Unit
3.5.6. The proportion of cars in petrol, diesel and electric is divided on the basis of the
percentage given in Table 12 TAG Unit 3.5.6 until 2030 and is assumed to be the same for the
remaining years. The vehicle km saved is divided into each car category on the basis of above
proportions. In 2011, according to our previous estimation total number of car kilometers saved
from both cyclists and pedestrians is 5093 Kilometres. Dividing the total car Kms saved in each
category is 2903.7 Kms for petrol cars, 2188 Kms for diesel cars and 1.63 Kms for electric
cars. Using the fuel and energy consumption formula mentioned above the fuel and energy
consumed for the year 2011 comes out to be 179 litres (petrol cars), 109 litres (diesel cars), and
0.2 kWh (electric cars).
The market price for petrol, diesel, and electricity is taken form Table 11a in TAG Unit 3.5.6.
Prices are in 2010 price level which has been converted to 2011 price level using RPI inflation
factor of 1.052. The market price used is the sum of resource cost and fuel duty, plus VAT (that
is, market price= [resource cost + fuel duty] x [1+VAT]. Beyond 2030, both the resource and
duty prices are forecasted to grow at a rate of 0.195% per year (Para 1.3.24, TAG Unit 3.5.6).
The resource cost of electricity beyond 2030 is taken form Table 11b in TAG Unit 3.5.6. The
fuel consumption cost for the entire appraisal period calculated from the car Kms saved comes
out to be 20,617, 22,152, and 551 from petrol, diesel, and electric cars respectively. Total
benefits from saving fuel VOC for the appraisal period is 43,321.
37
Vehicle Operating Costs-Non fuel:

The Non-fuel VOC include oil, tyres, maintenance, depreciation and vehicle capital saving.
The Non-fuel VOC can be calculated from the formula given below:
C=a1 + b1/V
Where:
C= cost in pence per kilometer travelled.
V= average link speed in kilometers per hour.
a1 is a parameter for distance related costs.
b1 is a parameter for vehicle capital saving ( only for working vehicles).
The average link speed used for the calculation is 51.4 km/hour, which is the yearly average
vehicle speed in 2011 for the vehicles in Hampshire authority managed A roads (DfT, 2012c).
In case of Non-fuel non-working VOC there is no b factor, hence the formula used is a1/V.
The price levels are converted to 2011 prices by using CPI inflation factor of 1.045. Both a1
and b1 parameter values are taken from Table 15 TAG Unit 3.5.6 for both working and
nonworking time. Both working and non-working times are assumed to 5% and 95%
respectively. The rate of change in Non-fuel cost is done as per the rates mentioned in Table
16 TAG Unit 3.5.6.
Total savings from non-fuel VOC for the appraisal period is 3,256.
Thus, total savings from VOC (both of fuel and non-fuel) = 43,321+3,256= 46,577.
Detailed calculation for both fuel and Non-fuel VOC is attached in Appendix F.
4.2.7 Indirect Tax Revenue loss:

Due to modal shift occurring from car to either cycling or walking mode as a result of the
walkway car kilometers saved or taken off leads to a loss in indirect tax revenues to the
Central government. This is due to the reduced fuel sales. Indirect tax calculation from NTM
(National Transport model) shows that this Indirect tax revenue is the difference between
Perceived and Resource cost of fuel which is nothing but the fuel duty (TAG Unit 3.9.5, Para
3.9). In addition to the fuel duty VAT is also applied over the fuel and electricity consumed,
which is 20% for both petrol and diesel and 5% for electric cars. The values for fuel duty and
VAT are taken from table 11a of TAG Unit 3.5.6 for the indirect tax revenue calculation. These
values are in 2010 price level which is converted to 2011 price level by using RPI inflation
index. The RPI inflation factor used for 2011 price calculation is 1.052. The values for fuel and
energy consumption calculated on the basis of car kilometers saved is added in Appendix G.
The total loss from indirect tax revenue calculated for the appraisal period is 13,341.
38
4.2.8 Discounting of Benefits and Costs:

Benefits and Costs calculated for each year during the appraisal period is discounted to the
present value by using a discount rate of 3.5%. Any sum which may occur during the project
years can be reduced to its present value by the formula:
Present Value= Sum/ (1+0.035)x.
Where, 1/ (1+r)n is the discount factor used for the respective scheme year n.
For both cost and benefit the present value is calculated using the above formula and are
denoted as PVC (Present Value Cost) and PVB (Present Value Benefits).
Net Present Value=PVB-PVC
Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR):
BCR=PVB/PVC
39
5. Discussion and Analysis of Results

Table 19 Cost and Benefit accounting of Itchen Boardwalk Case study
Scheme Capital cost (adjusted)
1,500,000
Operating Costs
300,000
Big lottery fund
-450,000
Indirect Tax Revenue
21,054
Public accounts (PVC)
1,246,953
Noise reduction
1,885
Local Air quality
178
Greenhouse gases
5,633
TEE Business users (Congestion)
16,151
TEE Users consumers

Time savings
21,450
Vehicle Operating Cost
46,577
Journey ambience (both cycling and

pedestrians)
1,462,635
Health benefits
13,266,282
Reduced Absenteeism
97,305
Accident Benefits
110,915
Present Value of Benefits
12,490,415
Net Present Value
11,243,462
BCR
10
Present value calculation for cost and benefits for each year is shown in Appendix H.
The above table shows the total economic value of each benefits obtained as a result of users
generated by the construction of the Itchen Riverside Boardwalk. The Net Present Value
obtained is close to 11 million, and the Benefit-Cost Ratio obtained is 10. The results shows
that most of the contribution comes from the health and Journey Ambience values. Usually for
40
engineering projects when the Cost-Benefit Ratio is above 1, it can be considered acceptable
economically, when it is in between 1 to 2, it is considered to be fair, when it is above 2, such
projects are considered highly economical and emphasizes a good return for money. As the
BCR obtained for the walkway is 10, it can be stated that the construction of walkway at the
Itchen Riverside in Southampton has the potential for a high return for money.
The economic return from any engineering project depends on a number of factors associated
with it like the construction period, market prices of construction material, economic life, or
maintenance cost incurred during the appraisal period etc. Hence, it is also important to check
how sensitive its economic value is, when there are fluctuations on the factors to which it
depends. A few imaginary scenarios has been taken below and their respective impact on the
Cost-Benefit Ratio and Net Present Value is analyzed.
Case 1: Changes in Users generated.
When there are no users generated after 2011, BCR evaluated on the basis of the users
generated for the first year of the scheme.
BCR=1.84 and NPV=1,039,733.
When the growth of users in the first year is assumed to sustain till 2020
BCR=19.34 and NPV=23,035,162.
When the growth of users in the first year is assumed to sustain till 2025
BCR=27.73 and NPV=33,722,350.
Case 2: Changes in maintenance cost
When there is no maintenance cost until 2020
BCR= 10.73 and NPV=11,326,629.
When there is no maintenance cost until 2025
BCR=11.04 and NPV=11,358,637.
When there is no maintenance cost until 2031 that is 20 years from the scheme opening year.
BCR=11.31 and NPV=11,385,587.
When the maintenance cost is assumed to be 15,000
BCR=9.33 and NPV=11,151,502.
When the maintenance cost is 20,000
BCR=8.7 and NPV=11,059,542.
When the maintenance cost is 5,000
41
BCR=10.81 and NPV=11,335,423.

Case 3: Removing certain scheme benefits
When the analysis is done without the health benefits
BCR=0.42 and NPV= -724,263
When the benefits for business users (or other users) are removed which includes Noise, Air
quality, Carbon emission, Congestion and Absenteeism benefits,
BCR=9.96 and NPV= 11,174,609
Case 4: Changes in the Appraisal period
When the appraisal period is 10 years
BCR=10.44 and NPV=10,755,705.
When the appraisal period is 20 years
BCR=10.18 and NPV=11,038,932.
Case 5: Optimism bias applied
When a +15% Optimism bias uplift is applied
BCR=8.5 and NPV= 11,018,462.
When a +32% Optimism bias uplift is applied
BCR=7.2 and NPV= 10,763,462.
From the above sensitivity analysis done we can find that, even when the benefits are estimated
taking the first year of the scheme the Benefit-Cost Ratio is above 1 and is beneficial from
economic point of view. The BCR value is found to be highly sensitive to changes in the
number of users. When the growth is assumed to sustain till 2020, the BCR value increases by
93.4%. The BCR value is not significantly sensitive to changes in the maintenance cost. In all
cases assumed it is quiet close to 10. The BCR is found to be highly sensitive when there is
changes in health benefits. The BCR falls below 1 and the Net Present Value is negative when
the benefits from physical fitness is removed. By removing the benefits of Business users we
can see that the benefits for others in the scheme constitutes only 0.4% of the total benefits,
and 99.6% of the benefits is enjoyed by the consumer themselves.
Changes in the appraisal period doesnt seems to impact much on the BCR value. There is a
slight change on the BCR value when the uplifts for Optimism Bias is applied.
42
6. Conclusions
Cycling and walking modes are often considered as a poor mans transport mode since the
development of motorized mode. Transport economists in the past years from many developed
and developing country also get baffled when they were asked to justify the economic return
for the investments over Cycling and Walking schemes. This was mainly due to the lack of
sufficient evidences which provided the economic evaluation of benefits associated with real
cycling and walking schemes.
Through the economic analysis of the Itchen Riverside Boardwalk in Southampton, this
research has provided a detailed analysis of the money value associated with different benefits
enjoyed by the users of the Boardwalk. The economic value for benefits associated with
Environment, Health, Travel Time, Cost and Volume, Journey Ambience, and Safety has been
estimated on the basis of the growth shown in the user numbers in the initial years. The BenefitCost Ratio obtained also proves the high money value of the investment in this Boardwalk.
The results shows that most the benefits in this scheme comes from health and Absenteeism
benefits. Other benefits related to Travel time, Travel cost, Environment have been estimated
considering the distance travelled by car form Horseshoe Bridge to Northam Bridge via A335
Road. But in reality the case may be different. The trip distance could be more for the car
travelers. This is one such obvious reason for the low values for the benefits estimated from
car kilometers removed. Survey data regarding the exact trip length by each user and the
Number of daily trips done by a single user must be available to avoid the under estimation of
trip lengths.
There is a period during which the health benefits will accrue over time until an individual is
deemed fully active and to derive the full health benefits of their trip-making activities by
active modes, since there less research evidences over such accrue period (para 1.10.8, TAG
Unit 3.14.1). Here in this evaluation the users are assumed to gain the full health benefits
immediately, which will be an over estimation. The initial growth in users generated as a result
of the scheme implementation is assumed to remain with the same increase in numbers for four
years till 2015. The actual growth in the users for the remaining years can be found with more
RUS surveys conducted at the site in the coming years. The annualisation factor is assumed to
be 365 days for the evaluation of few benefits. But usually the trips are less during the weekend
comparing to weekdays. Seasonal and climatic factors like journeys during vacation time and
during a rainy day is going to be different from other normal days. These factors could also be
added during evaluation of number of trips when relevant survey reports on weekend trips and
local weather report for the whole year is available. Other benefits like the enjoyment
experienced by a Cyclist or Pedestrian through a riverside cant be evaluated in monetary terms.
This walkway has also increased the accessibility to the Transport interchanges and other hot
spot locations like, the boardwalk is now making a direct and short route to the St. Denys Rail
station in the North and to the football stadium in the South.
43
At present, the walkway with its hardwood decking surface only covers 400 meters. The
Southern end of this walkway has its older path connecting to the Northam Bridge. This path
is a narrow lane with gravel surface. Many current cyclists and pedestrians are using this path.
The previous surveys conducted at this location doesnt give any information regarding the
users on this path. This path is much shorter than the current National Cycle Route via the
industrial area to reach the Northam Bridge. Further development on this path in future can
further increase the number of users. The facilities like lighting, Benches, CCTV cameras, and
regular cutting of bushes grown at the side of the walkway could be done which may attract
more users and feel them safe and comfortable during their journey.
This research project has provided an evidence of the high economic value attached with a
Cycling and Walking scheme from the detailed economic evaluation of benefits associated with
the users generated in the Itchen Walkway, Southampton.
44
References
Baker, G., Gray, S. R., Wright, A., Fitzsimons, C., Nimmo, M., Lowry, R., & Mutrie, N.
(2008). The effect of a pedometer-based community walking intervention Walking for
Wellbeing in the West on physical activity levels and health outcomes: A 12 week
randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Behavior Nutrition and Physical
Activity, 5, 44.
Bird, E.L., Baker, G., Mutrie, N., Ogilvie, D., Sahlqvist, S. and Powell, J. (2013)
Behavior change techniques used to promote walking and cycling: A systematic review.
Health Psychology [Online]. Available at:
http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/18458/19/BCT_review_2013.pdf [Accessed on 15th July 2013]
Bidwell, S. (2012) Review of studies that have quantified the economic benefits of
interventions to increase walking and cycling for transport, Canterbury District Health
Board [Online]. Available at:
http://www.cph.co.nz/Files/QuantEconBenefitPhysicalActive.pdf [Accessed 15th July
2013]
Cairns, S., Sloman, L., Newson, C., Anable, J., Kirkbride, A. and Goodwin, P. (2004)
Smarter Choices- Changing the Way We Travel, DfT, p. vi, [Online]. Available at:
http://www.transportforqualityoflife.com/u/files/Smarter_Choices_Changing_The_Way_
We_Travel_chapter1.pdf [Accessed on 20th July 2013]
CBI, (2011) Healthy returns? Absence and workplace health survey 2011 [Online].
Available at: http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/955604/2011.05-healthy_returns__absence_and_workplace_health_survey_2011.pdf [Accessed on 8th August 2013]
CILT, (2011) Think Cycling [Online]. Available at:
http://www.ciltuk.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/The%20Hub/thinkcycling.pdf [Accessed
on 10th August 2013]
Cui, W. (2012) Evaluating Infrastructural Interventions on the Itchen Riverside
Boardwalk (Southampton) to promote Active Travel Behavior. Dissertation project
(MSc), University of Southampton.
Dill, J. and Gliebe, J. (2008) Understanding and Measuring Bicycling Behavior: A Focus
on Travel Time and Route Choice, Oregon Transportation Research and Education
Consortium (OTREC) [Online]. Available at:
www.lulu.com/items/volume_64/5687000/5687029/1/print/OTREC-RR-0803_Dill_BicyclingBehavior_FinalReport.pdf [Accessed 17th July 2013]
Davis, A. (2010) Value for Money: An Economic Assessment of Investment in Walking
and Cycling, Department for Health, pp. 3-13 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=91553 [Accessed on 17th August 2013]
45
Du, H. Y., Newton, P. J., Zecchin, R., Denniss, R., Salamonson, Y., Everett, B.,
Davidson, P. M. (2011) An intervention to promote physical activity and selfmanagement in people with stable chronic heart failure The Home-Heart-Walk study:
Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 12, 63.
DfT (2004) Walking and Cycling: an action plan [Online]. Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/walki
ng/actionplan/ingandcyclingdocumentinp5802.pdf [Accessed on 23rd July 2013]
DfT (2007) Highways Economics Note No. 1 2005 Valuation of the Benefits of Prevention
of Road Accidents and Casualties [Online]. Available at:
http://www.fightbackwithfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/D.38-Valuation-ofAccidents.pdf [Accessed on 20th August 2013]
DfT (2008a) Cycling England [Online]. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110601212617/http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclin
gengland/who-we-are/ [Accessed on 29th August 2013]
DfT (2008b) Local sustainable Transport fund: Cycling England [Online]. Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110601212617/http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclin
gengland/2011/03/local-sustainable-transport-fund/ [Accessed on 3rd July 2013]
DfT (2011a) Commuting and Business trips [Online]. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49703/Co
mmuting_and_business_travel_factsheet___April_2011.pdf [Accessed on 7th July 2013]
DfT (2012a) Local Area walking and cycling statistics [Online]. Available
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-area-walking-and-cycling-in-england2010-11
DfT (2012b) Traffic count Southampton 2012 [Online]. Available at:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/area.php?region=South+East&la=Southampton
DfT (2012c) Congestion on local authority managed A roads. [Online]. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/congestion-on-local-authority-managed-aroads-2011-12
46
DfT (2012d) CPI and RPI Index. [Online].

Available at: http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/
DfT (2012e) Guidance on the Appraisal of Walking and Cycling Schemes TAG Unit
3.14.1 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/u3_14_1-walking-and-cycling120723.pdf
DfT (2012f) Major Scheme Appraisal: Road Decongestion benefits TAG Unit 3.9.5
[Online]. Available at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/U3_9_5-msa-road-decongestionbenefits-120723.pdf
DfT (2012g) Value of Time and Vehicle Operating Cost TAG Unit 3.5.6 [Online].
Available from: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/u3_5_6-vot-opcost-120723.pdf
DfT (2012h), Reported Road Accident Map [Online]. Available at:

http://road-collisions.dft.gov.uk/accidentmap/southampton?Year=2012&AccidentSeverity=Fatal,Serious&AgeBand=&VehicleTy
pe [Accessed on 14th September 2013]
DfT (2013) National Travel Survey: 2012 [Online]. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-travel-survey-2012 [Accessed on
22nd July 2013]
Galloway, J., (2005) Walking: The Complete Book. New York, Meyer & Meyer Sport
Limited.
Goodwin (2005) Utilities Street Works and the Cost of Traffic Congestion, p 31
[Online]. Available at:
http://www.njug.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/93.pdf [Accessed on 20th July 2013]
47
Hampshire County Council (HCC) (2011) Southampton Census factsheet [Online].

Available at:
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/2011_census_southampton_summary_factsheet.pdf
Heuman, D (2005) Investment in the Strategic Walks - Economic Evaluation with
Waves, Strategic Walk Network, Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited, July.
iConnect (2013) Impact of COnstructing Non-motorised Networks and Evaluating
Changes in Travel [Online]. Available at: http://www.iconnect.ac.uk/
Jacobsen, P.L. (2003) Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists,
Safer Walking and Bicycling, Injury prevention. British Medical Journal, 9, pp.205-209
[Online]. Available at: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/205.full.pdf+html
[Accessed on 14th September 2013]
Krag, 2005 CBA of cycling, p.33 Nordic Council.
Killoran, A., Doyle, N., Waller, S., Wohlgemuth, C., and Crombie, H. (2006) Transport
Interventions Promoting Safe Cycling and Walking: Evidence briefing, National Institute
for Health and Clinical Excellence, [Online]. Available at:
http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/Transport_Evidence_Briefing_05-07.pdf
[Accessed on 16th July 2013]
Litman, T.A. (2011) Economic Value of Walkability, Victoria Transport Policy Institute,
p.16 [Online]. Available at: http://www.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf [Accessed on 17th July
2013]
Litman, T.A. (2013) Evaluating Non-Motorized Transport benefits and costs. Victoria
Transport Policy Institute [Online]. Available at: http://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf
Morris, J. (1994) Exercise in the prevention of coronary heart disease: todays best buy in
public health, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26: 807-813.
Ministry of Transport, Netherland (1999) The Dutch Bicycle Master Plan, description
and evaluation in an historical context, p.49 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/The%20Dutch%20Bicycle%20Ma
ster%20Plan%201999.pdf [Accessed on 25th July 2013 ]
48
Mutrie, N., Carney, C., Blamey, A., Crawford, F., Aitchison, T., & Whitelaw, A. (2002).
Walk In to Work Out: A randomized controlled trial of a self-help intervention to
promote active commuting. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56, 407
412.
Merom, D., Rissel, C., Phongsavan, P., Smith, B. J., van Kemende, C.,Brown, W. J., &
Bauman, A. E. (2007). Promoting walking with pedometers in the community: The Stepby-Step Trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, 290 297.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2006) Transport interventions
promoting safe cycling and walking: Evidence briefing [Online]. Available at:
http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/Transport_Evidence_Briefing_05-07.pdf
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2007) Guidance on Behavior
change [Online]. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/ph6
Ogilvie, D. and Egan, M. and Hamilton, V. and Petticrew, M. (2004) Promoting walking
and cycling as an alternative to using cars: systematic review. British Medical Journal
329(7469) [Online]. Available at:
http://www.bmj.com/content/329/7469/763.pdf%2Bhtml
[Accessed on 23rd July 2013]
Ogilvie, D., Foster, C. E., Rothnie, H., Cavill, N., Hamilton, V., Fitzsimons, C. F., &
Mutrie, N. (2007). Interventions to promote walking: Systematic review. BMJ: British
Medical Journal, 334, 1204.
Office for National statistics (2011) Neighborhood Statistics [Online]. Available at:
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadDatasetList.do?a=7&b=6
499739&c=bevois&d=14&g=6401341&i=1001x1003x1032&m=0&r=1&s=1376766032
035&enc=1&domainId=61 [Accessed 20th August 2013]
Ogilvie, D., Bull, F., Cooper, A., Rutter, H., Adams, E., Brand, C., Ghali, K., Jones, T.,
Mutrie, N., Powell, J., Preston, J., Sahlqvist, S., Song, Y. (2012) Evaluating the travel,
physical activity and carbon impacts of a natural experiment in the provision of new
walking and cycling infrastructure: methods for the core module of the iConnect study,
British Medical Journal Open, 2:e000694, pp. 7,8 [Online]. Available at:
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000694.full.pdf+html
49
Pratt, R.H., Evans, J.E., and Levinson, H.S. (2012), Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities,
Chapter 16, Traveller Response to Transportation System Changes, TCRP Report 95,
TRB (www.trb.org) [Online]. Available at:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c16.pdf
[Accessed 17th July 2013]
Rural and Urban areas Southampton (2004). [Online]. Available at:

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/southampton_and_surrounding_area_rural_urban.pdf
[Accessed on 2nd August 2013]
Sansom, T., Nash, C., Mackie, P., Shires, J. and Watkiss, P. (2001) Surface Transport
Cost and Charges Great Britain 1998, University of Leeds [Online]. Available at:
http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/Surface_Transport_Costs_and_Charges
_Great_Britain_2001.pdf [Accessed on 23rd July 2013]
Segal, N., Quince, R., and Wicksteed, B. (2007) Valuing the Benefits of Cycling [Online].
Available at: http://www.hiagateway.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=118319 [Accessed
on 23rd July 2013]
Sloman. L., Cavill, N., Cope, A., Muller, L. and Kennedy, A. (2009) Analysis and
synthesis of evidence on the effects of investment in six Cycling Demonstration Towns.
London: Cycling England, p.24 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.transportforqualityoflife.com/u/files/Analysis%20and%20Synthesis%20Nov
%202009.pdf [Accessed on 25th July 2013]
Southampton City Council (SCC) (2011a) Planning Annual Monitoring Report 2010-11,
p.24, [Online]. Available at:
http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/SCC%20AMR%202010-11_tcm46-314278.pdf
[Accessed 16th August 2013]
Southampton City Council (SCC) (2011b) Travel Survey report 2011 [Online]. Available
at:
http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/Southampton%20Rep%20V2%20110511_tcm46
-298966.pdf.
50
Southampton City Council (SCC) (2011c) Local Transport plan 3, p.108 [Online].
Available at:
http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/LTP3%20Final-web%20resolution_tcm46305220.pdf
Southampton City Council (2012) Traffic Count for Different Local Authority [Online].
Available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/cp.php [Accessed on 23rd August
2013]
Sustrans (2013) National Cycle Network [Online]. Available at:

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/map/national-cycle-network [Accessed on 14th
September 2013]
Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) (2003) Capacity implications of Advanced Stop
Lines for cyclists, TRL585, p.7 [Online]. Available at:
https://wiki.cecs.pdx.edu/pub/ItsWeb/BikeBoxes/TRL585.pdf [Accessed on 25Th August
2013]
White, E. (2010) Investigating the effectiveness of the Itchen Walkway, Southampton, as a
measure to encourage modal shift. Dissertation project (MSc), University of
Southampton.
Wilson, A. and Cope, A. (2011) Value for Money of walking and cycling interventions:
Making the case for investment in active travel, Sustrans Researching and Monitoring
unit, p.3 [Online]. Available at: http://www.stsg.org/star/2011//angelaWilson.pdf
Wilbur, J., Miller, A. M., Chandler, P., & McDevitt, J. (2003). Determinants of physical
activity and adherence to a 24-week home-based walking program in African-American
and Caucasian women. Research in Nursing & Health, 26, 213224.
WHO, (2007) Economic assessment of transport infrastructure and policies:
Methodological guidance on the economic appraisal of health effects related to walking
and cycling, Copenhagen: Denmark, [Online]. Available at:
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/87479/E90944.pdf
World Health Organization (WHO) (2003), Health and development through physical
activity and sport. [Online]. Available at:
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2003/WHO_NMH_NPH_PAH_03.2.pdf
51
APPENDIX A: Usage Estimation
Usage per day(with

intervention)
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Total
Usage per day

(core scenario)
Cyclist Pedestrian Cyclist
Users Generated by
intervention
New individuals added
Pedestrian Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclists Pedestrians
331
394
457
520
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
583
8
9
10
11
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
268
271
274
277
280
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
283
0
110
220
330
440
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
0
60
120
180
240
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
110
110
110
110
110
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
60
60
60
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16860
380
8460
15400
8400
550
300
268
119
230
341
452
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
15780
52
APPENDIX B: Car Kilometers Saved

Mean trip length
(km)
Users Generated
Pedestr
Year Cyclist ians
2011
2.1
2012
2.1
2013
2.1
2014
2.1
2015
2.1
2016
2.1
2017
2.1
2018
2.1
2019
2.1
2020
2.1
2021
2.1
2022
2.1
2023
2.1
2024
2.1
2025
2.1
2026
2.1
2027
2.1
2028
2.1
2029
2.1
2030
2.1
2031
2.1
2032
2.1
2033
2.1
2034
2.1
2035
2.1
2036
2.1
2037
2.1
2038
2.1
2039
2.1
2040
2.1
Cyclist
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
110
220
330
440
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
Trip Distance for

Car Kms Saved( per day)
each trip
Pedestri
Pedestri
Pedestria
ans
Cyclists ans
Cyclists ns
Total
60
120
180
240
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
231
462
693
924
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
1155
126
252
378
504
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
53
8.6625
17.325
25.9875
34.65
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
43.3125
Car Kms Saved (365 days)
Pedestria
Cyclists ns
Total
5.292 13.9545 3161.813 1931.58 5093.393
10.584 27.909 6323.625 3863.16 10186.79
15.876 41.8635 9485.438 5794.74 15280.18
21.168 55.818 12647.25 7726.32 20373.57
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
Total
442653.8 270421.2 713075
APPENDIX C: Marginal Economic Cost

MEC for Congestion, Noise, Air quality and Greenhouse gases
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
MEC
Congesti
MEC
on
Congestion Noise
Car Kms Saved (365 days) (p/Km) Benefits (p/Km)
3161.813
6323.625
9485.438
12647.25
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
15809.06
1931.58
3863.16
5794.74
7726.32
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
9657.9
5093.393
10186.79
15280.18
20373.57
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
Total
In
1.92
1.94
1.96
1.98
2.00
2.02
2.04
2.06
2.08
2.10
2.12
2.14
2.16
2.18
2.20
2.24
2.28
2.32
2.36
2.40
2.42
2.44
2.46
2.48
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
9779.31
19762.36
29949.15
40339.67
50933.93
51443.26
51952.60
52461.94
52971.28
53480.62
53989.96
54499.30
55008.64
55517.98
56027.32
57046.00
58064.67
59083.35
60102.03
61120.71
61630.05
62139.39
62648.73
63158.07
63667.41
63667.41
63667.41
63667.41
63667.41
63667.41
1615114.76
16151.14762
Noise
Benefits
1018.68
2037.36
3056.04
4074.71
5093.39
5093.39
5093.39
5093.39
5093.39
5093.39
5602.73
6112.07
6621.41
7130.75
7640.09
7640.09
7640.09
7640.09
7640.09
7640.09
7640.09
7640.09
7640.09
7640.09
7640.09
7640.09
7640.09
7640.09
7640.09
7640.09
188455.52
1884.555225
MEC
Green Green
MEC
Air
house house
quality Air quality gases
gases
(p/Km) Benefits (p/Km) Benefits
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
509.34
1018.68
1528.02
2037.36
2546.70
2546.70
2546.70
2546.70
2546.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.90
0.86
0.82
0.78
0.74
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.74
0.78
0.82
0.86
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
17826.87
178.2687375
Total MEC benefits
54
4176.582
8556.899
13140.95
17928.74
22920.27
21901.59
20882.91
19864.23
18845.55
17826.87
17826.87
17826.87
17826.87
17826.87
17826.87
17826.87
17826.87
17826.87
17826.87
17826.87
18845.55
19864.23
20882.91
21901.59
22920.27
22920.27
22920.27
22920.27
22920.27
22920.27
563329.2
5633.292
23847.26
Marginal External Costs & Indirect Tax - Cars

Pence per car km
2010 Prices
2010 Prices
2010
Cost type
Congestion
band
2015
Other Urban
Other Urban
A roads
Other
Roads
A roads
Other
Roads
0.6
2.4
0.6
2.5
2
3
4
5
Average
1.9
11.0
46.9
73.1
13.6
9.0
19.4
134.4
222.2
11.2
2.0
11.5
44.9
78.1
15.3
9.4
20.2
136.9
241.4
11.9
Infrastructure
All
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Accident
All
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.2
Local Air Quality

Noise
All
All
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
Greenhouse Gases
All
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
Indirect Taxation
All
-4.8
-5.4
-4.7
-5.3
13.0
10.1
15.0
11.1
Congestion
Total
2020
Cost type
Congestion
band
2025
Other
Urban
Other
Urban
Congestion
1
2
3
4
5
Average
0.6
2.1
13.0
46.8
89.9
19.0
Other
Roads
2.7
10.2
21.7
93.8
266.7
14.0
Infrastructure
All
0.1
0.1
A roads
55
0.7
2.2
14.2
48.5
104.0
23.6
Other
Roads
2.8
10.7
23.1
90.0
307.2
16.5
0.1
0.1
A roads
Accident
All
3.5
3.5
3.8
3.8
Local Air Quality

Noise
All
All
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
Greenhouse Gases
All
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
Indirect Taxation
All
-4.3
-4.8
-3.7
-4.1
19.3
13.9
24.9
17.4
Total
2030
2035
Other Urban
Other
A roads
Roads
0.7
2.9
2.4
11.3
15.5
24.6
52.0
94.6
118.8
337.8
28.1
18.4
Other Urban
Other
A roads
Roads
0.8
3.1
2.5
12.1
17.0
26.6
56.2
96.9
137.7
385.1
34.1
21.2
Cost type
Congestion
band
Congestion
1
2
3
4
5
Average
Infrastructure
All
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Accident
All
4.2
4.2
4.6
4.6
Local Air Quality
All
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Noise
All
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Greenhouse Gases
All
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.1
Indirect Taxation
All
-3.4
-3.8
-3.3
-3.7
30.0
20.0
36.9
23.7
Total
56
APPENDIX D: Journey Ambience Benefits

Users
generated
(cyclist)
110
220
330
440
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Total
Users
generated
(pedestrians)
60
120
180
240
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Benefits
10033
20067
30100
40134
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
50167
1404688
57
Benefits
413.91
827.82
1241.73
1655.64
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
2069.55
Total
benefits
10447.4
20894.79
31342.19
41789.58
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
52236.98
57947.4
1462635
APPENDIX E: Health Benefits
Increase in value of human life

GDP
growth
Year
Value of life
per head
2005
1428180
2.02
2006 1457029.236
2.78
2007 1497534.649
-1.77
2008 1471028.285
-4.98
2009 1397771.077
1.32
2010 1416221.655
-0.06
2011 1415371.922
0.09
2012 1416645.757
1.28
2013 1434778.822
1.98
2014 1463187.443
2.3
2015 1496840.754
2.33
2016 1531717.144
2.13
2017 1564342.719
1.63
2018 1589841.505
1.64
2019 1615914.906
1.64
2020 1642415.911
1.85
2021 1672800.605
1.76
2022 1702241.896
1.77
2023 1732371.577
1.89
2024
1765113.4
1.8
2025 1796885.441
1.82
2026 1829588.756
1.83
2027
1863070.23
1.85
2028
1897537.03
1.87
2029 1933020.972
1.88
2030 1969361.766
1.9
2031
2006779.64
1.91
2032 2045109.131
2.03
2033 2086624.846
2.15
2034 2131487.281
2.15
2035 2177314.257
2.15
2036 2224126.514
2.08
2037 2270388.345
2.08
2038 2317612.423
2.08
2039 2365818.761
2.18
2040
2417393.61
New
Users
every
year
Proportion
dying each
year
Expected
death in the
population
Lives
saved
each
year
Reduced
mortality
benefit
Cyclist
110
110
110
110
110
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
58
23.21
0.6963
23.21
0.6963
23.21
0.6963
23.21
0.6963
23.21
0.6963
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Benefits
985523.4693
986410.4405
999036.4941
1018817.417
1042250.217
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,032,038.04
Increase in value of human life
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Value of life
1428180
1457029.236
1497534.649
1471028.285
1397771.077
1416221.655
1415371.922
1416645.757
1434778.822
1463187.443
1496840.754
1531717.144
1564342.719
1589841.505
1615914.906
1642415.911
1672800.605
1702241.896
1732371.577
1765113.4
1796885.441
1829588.756
1863070.23
1897537.03
1933020.972
1969361.766
2006779.64
2045109.131
2086624.846
2131487.281
2177314.257
2224126.514
2270388.345
2317612.423
2365818.761
2417393.61
GDP
growth
per head
New Users
every year
Expected
Proportion
death in
dying each
the
year
population
Lives
saved
each
year
Reduced
mortality
benefit
Pedestrians
2.02
2.78
-1.77
-4.98
1.32
-0.06
0.09
1.28
1.98
2.3
2.33
2.13
1.63
1.64
1.64
1.85
1.76
1.77
1.89
1.8
1.82
1.83
1.85
1.87
1.88
1.9
1.91
2.03
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.18
60
60
60
60
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
0.211
59
12.66
12.66
12.66
12.66
12.66
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1394
1612674.768
1.1394
1614126.175
1.1394
1634786.99
1.1394
1667155.773
1.1394
1705500.356
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Benefits 8,234,244.06
Reduced Absenteeism benefits:
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Salary
per
GDP
Users generated Commuters
growth working
Pedestri
Walki rate per person/d
an
ay
Cyclist
Cycling ng capita
260.31
-0.06 260.1538
110
60
14.3
9.6
220
120
28.6 19.2 0.09
260.388
330
180
42.9 28.8 1.28 263.7209
440
240
57.2 38.4 1.98 268.9426
2.3
550
300
71.5
48
275.1283
2.33
550
300
71.5
48
281.5388
2.13
550
300
71.5
48
287.5355
1.63
550
300
71.5
48
292.2224
1.64
550
300
71.5
48
297.0148
1.64
550
300
71.5
48
301.8859
1.85
550
300
71.5
48
307.4707
1.76
550
300
71.5
48
312.8822
1.77
550
300
71.5
48
318.4202
1.89
550
300
71.5
48
324.4384
1.8
550
300
71.5
48
330.2783
1.82
550
300
71.5
48
336.2893
1.83
550
300
71.5
48
342.4434
1.85
550
300
71.5
48
348.7786
1.87
550
300
71.5
48
355.3008
1.88
550
300
71.5
48
361.9805
1.9
550
300
71.5
48
368.8581
1.91
550
300
71.5
48
375.9033
2.03
550
300
71.5
48
383.5341
2.15
550
300
71.5
48
391.7801
2.15
550
300
71.5
48
400.2034
2.15
550
300
71.5
48
408.8077
2.08
550
300
71.5
48
417.3109
2.08
550
300
71.5
48
425.991
2.08
550
300
71.5
48
434.8516
2.18
550
300
71.5
48
444.3314
Reduced absenteeism benefits

Salary
saved
Cycling
0.051
13.26784
13.27979
13.44977
13.71607
14.03154
14.35848
14.66431
14.90334
15.14776
15.39618
15.68101
15.95699
16.23943
16.54636
16.84419
17.15076
17.46462
17.78771
18.12034
18.461
18.81176
19.17107
19.56024
19.98078
20.41037
20.84919
21.28286
21.72554
22.17743
22.6609
Salary
saved
Walking
0.134
34.86061
34.89199
35.3386
36.03831
36.86719
37.72619
38.52976
39.1578
39.79998
40.4527
41.20108
41.92622
42.66831
43.47474
44.25729
45.06277
45.88742
46.73634
47.61031
48.50538
49.42698
50.37104
51.39357
52.49853
53.62725
54.78024
55.91967
57.0828
58.27012
59.54041
Cycling walking
benefits benefits
189.7302
379.8019
576.995
784.5593
1003.255
1026.631
1048.498
1065.589
1083.065
1100.827
1121.192
1140.925
1161.119
1183.065
1204.36
1226.279
1248.72
1271.821
1295.604
1319.962
1345.041
1370.731
1398.557
1428.626
1459.342
1490.717
1521.724
1553.376
1585.686
1620.254
334.6619
669.9261
1017.752
1383.871
1769.625
1810.857
1849.429
1879.574
1910.399
1941.73
1977.652
2012.458
2048.079
2086.788
2124.35
2163.013
2202.596
2243.344
2285.295
2328.258
2372.495
2417.81
2466.891
2519.93
2574.108
2629.451
2684.144
2739.974
2796.966
2857.939
Total
524.392
1049.73
1594.75
2168.43
2772.88
2837.49
2897.93
2945.16
2993.46
3042.56
3098.84
3153.38
3209.2
3269.85
3328.71
3389.29
3451.32
3515.17
3580.9
3648.22
3717.54
3788.54
3865.45
3948.56
4033.45
4120.17
4205.87
4293.35
4382.65
4478.19
Total 35206.05 62099.37 97305.4
60
APPENDIX F:
Benefits from Travel Time Savings
Users generated
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Previously
cycling/walking
other route
Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclists Pedestrians
110
220
330
440
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
60
120
180
240
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
23.87
47.74
71.61
95.48
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
119.35
17.52
35.04
52.56
70.08
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
87.6
61
Cost of time
Cyclist
Working
0.38
0.380342
0.38521
0.392838
0.401873
0.411236
0.419996
0.426842
0.433842
0.440957
0.449115
0.457019
0.465108
0.473899
0.482429
0.491209
0.500198
0.509452
0.518979
0.528736
0.538782
0.549072
0.560218
0.572263
0.584567
0.597135
0.609555
0.622234
0.635177
0.649023
Nonworking
0.42
0.420378
0.425759
0.434189
0.444175
0.454524
0.464206
0.471772
0.479509
0.487373
0.49639
0.505126
0.514067
0.523783
0.533211
0.542915
0.552851
0.563079
0.573608
0.584392
0.595495
0.606869
0.619189
0.632501
0.6461
0.659991
0.673719
0.687732
0.702037
0.717342
Pedestrian
working
0.66
0.660594
0.66905
0.682297
0.69799
0.714253
0.729466
0.741357
0.753515
0.765873
0.780041
0.79377
0.80782
0.823087
0.837903
0.853153
0.868766
0.884838
0.901384
0.91833
0.935778
0.953652
0.973011
0.993931
1.0153
1.037129
1.058701
1.080722
1.103201
1.127251
Nonworking
0.42
0.420378
0.425759
0.434189
0.444175
0.454524
0.464206
0.471772
0.479509
0.487373
0.49639
0.505126
0.514067
0.523783
0.533211
0.542915
0.552851
0.563079
0.573608
0.584392
0.595495
0.606869
0.619189
0.632501
0.6461
0.659991
0.673719
0.687732
0.702037
0.717342
Travel time saving benefits
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
GDP
growth %
0.09
1.28
1.98
2.3
2.33
2.13
1.63
1.64
1.64
1.85
1.76
1.77
1.89
1.8
1.82
1.83
1.85
1.87
1.88
1.9
1.91
2.03
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.18
Time savings(minutes)
Cyclist
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Benefits
pedestrians
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Cyclist
pedestrian
39.91064
75.6864
79.89312
151.509
121.3736
230.1725
165.0358
312.9733
211.0395
400.2146
215.9567
409.5396
220.5566
418.2627
224.1517
425.0804
227.8277
432.0517
231.5641
439.1374
235.8481
447.2614
239.999
455.1332
244.247
463.1891
248.8632
471.9434
253.3428
480.4384
257.9536
489.1823
262.6742
498.1344
267.5336
507.3499
272.5365
516.8373
277.6602
526.5538
282.9357
536.5584
288.3398
546.8066
294.1931
557.9068
300.5183
569.9018
306.9794
582.1547
313.5795
594.671
320.1019
607.0402
326.76
619.6666
333.5566
632.5557
340.8282
646.3454
Total Benefits
62
Total
115.597
231.4022
351.5462
478.009
611.254
625.4963
638.8193
649.2321
659.8795
670.7015
683.1095
695.1322
707.4361
720.8066
733.7811
747.1359
760.8085
774.8835
789.3738
804.214
819.4941
835.1464
852.0999
870.4201
889.1341
908.2505
927.1421
946.4266
966.1123
987.1736
21450.02
Benefits from Fuel Vehicle Operating Cost

Energy
consump
tion
Fuel cost parameters (petrol)
Fuel cost parameters (diesel)
a
b
b
(l/km) (l/km) c (l/km) d (l/km) a (l/km) b (l/km) c (l/km) d (l/km) Kwh/km
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
0.964023 0.041 -4.54E-05 2.01E-06 0.437094 0.058616 -0.00052 4.13E-06 0.125642
0.943875
0.924148
0.904833
0.885922
0.867406
0.835139
0.804071
0.77416
0.745361
0.717634
0.691584
0.666479
0.642286
0.618971
0.596502
0.583976
0.571712
0.559706
0.547953
0.536446
0.532476
0.528536
0.524624
0.520742
0.516889
0.513064
0.509267
0.505498
0.501758
0.498045
0.041
0.04
0.039
0.038
0.037
0.036
0.035
0.033
0.032
0.031
0.03
0.029
0.028
0.027
0.026
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.024
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.022
0.022
0.022
0.022
0.022
0.022
0.021
-4.45E-05
-4.35E-05
-4.26E-05
-4.17E-05
-4.09E-05
-3.93E-05
-3.79E-05
-3.65E-05
-3.51E-05
-3.38E-05
-3.26E-05
-3.14E-05
-3.03E-05
-2.92E-05
-2.81E-05
-2.75E-05
-2.69E-05
-2.64E-05
-2.58E-05
-2.53E-05
-2.51E-05
-2.49E-05
-2.47E-05
-2.45E-05
-2.44E-05
-2.42E-05
-2.4E-05
-2.38E-05
-2.36E-05
-2.35E-05
1.97E-06
1.93E-06
1.89E-06
1.85E-06
1.81E-06
1.74E-06
1.68E-06
1.62E-06
1.56E-06
1.5E-06
1.44E-06
1.39E-06
1.34E-06
1.29E-06
1.25E-06
1.22E-06
1.19E-06
1.17E-06
1.14E-06
1.12E-06
1.11E-06
1.1E-06
1.1E-06
1.09E-06
1.08E-06
1.07E-06
1.06E-06
1.06E-06
1.05E-06
1.04E-06
0.42962
0.422273
0.415052
0.407955
0.400979
0.392077
0.383373
0.374862
0.36654
0.358403
0.349013
0.339869
0.330964
0.322293
0.313849
0.307258
0.300806
0.294489
0.288304
0.28225
0.27954
0.276857
0.274199
0.271567
0.26896
0.266378
0.26382
0.261288
0.258779
0.256295
63
0.057614
0.056629
0.055661
0.054709
0.053773
0.05258
0.051412
0.050271
0.049155
0.048064
0.046804
0.045578
0.044384
0.043221
0.042089
0.041205
0.04034
0.039492
0.038663
0.037851
0.037488
0.037128
0.036771
0.036418
0.036069
0.035723
0.03538
0.03504
0.034704
0.03437
-0.00052
-0.00051
-0.0005
-0.00049
-0.00048
-0.00047
-0.00046
-0.00045
-0.00044
-0.00043
-0.00042
-0.00041
-0.0004
-0.00039
-0.00038
-0.00037
-0.00036
-0.00035
-0.00035
-0.00034
-0.00034
-0.00033
-0.00033
-0.00033
-0.00032
-0.00032
-0.00032
-0.00031
-0.00031
-0.00031
4.06E-06
3.99E-06
3.92E-06
3.85E-06
3.79E-06
3.7E-06
3.62E-06
3.54E-06
3.46E-06
3.38E-06
3.3E-06
3.21E-06
3.13E-06
3.04E-06
2.96E-06
2.9E-06
2.84E-06
2.78E-06
2.72E-06
2.67E-06
2.64E-06
2.61E-06
2.59E-06
2.56E-06
2.54E-06
2.52E-06
2.49E-06
2.47E-06
2.44E-06
2.42E-06
0.125504
0.125366
0.125228
0.12509
0.124953
0.124565
0.124179
0.123794
0.123411
0.123028
0.122155
0.121287
0.120426
0.119571
0.118722
0.117309
0.115913
0.114534
0.113171
0.111824
0.111534
0.111244
0.110954
0.110666
0.110378
0.110091
0.109805
0.109519
0.109235
0.108951
Proportion of Petrol, Diesel and Electric cars

%improvement in vehicle
efficiency
Petrol
Diesel Electric
cars
cars
cars
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
0.0209
0.0209
0.0209
0.0209
0.0209
0.0372
0.0372
0.0372
0.0372
0.0372
0.0363
0.0363
0.0363
0.0363
0.0363
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.0074
0.0074
0.0074
0.0074
0.0074
0.0074
0.0074
0.0074
0.0074
0.0074
Proportion of cars
petrol
diesel electric
cars
cars
cars
59.27%
40.73%
0.00%
0.0011
57.01%
42.96%
0.03%
0.0171
0.0011
54.75%
45.19%
0.06%
0.0171
0.0011
52.49%
47.41%
0.10%
0.0171
0.0011
50.23%
49.64%
0.13%
0.0171
0.0011
47.97%
51.87%
0.16%
0.0031
0.0031
0.0031
0.0031
0.0031
0.0071
0.0071
0.0071
0.0071
0.0071
0.0119
0.0119
0.0119
0.0119
0.0119
0.0026
0.0026
0.0026
0.0026
0.0026
0.0026
0.0026
0.0026
0.0026
0.0026
47.12%
52.56%
0.32%
46.26%
53.25%
0.48%
45.41%
53.95%
0.64%
44.55%
54.64%
0.80%
43.70%
55.33%
0.96%
43.84%
54.87%
1.28%
43.98%
54.42%
1.59%
44.13%
53.96%
1.91%
44.27%
53.51%
2.22%
44.41%
53.05%
2.54%
44.42%
52.49%
3.09%
44.43%
51.92%
3.65%
44.44%
51.36%
4.20%
44.45%
50.79%
4.76%
44.46%
50.23%
5.31%
44.46%
50.23%
5.31%
44.46%
50.23%
5.31%
44.46%
50.23%
5.31%
44.46%
50.23%
5.31%
44.46%
50.23%
5.31%
44.46%
50.23%
5.31%
44.46%
50.23%
5.31%
44.46%
50.23%
5.31%
44.46%
50.23%
5.31%
44.46%
50.23%
5.31%
0.0171
0.0222
0.0222
0.0222
0.0222
0.0222
0.0262
0.0262
0.0262
0.0262
0.0262
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.0096
0.0096
0.0096
0.0096
0.0096
0.0096
0.0096
0.0096
0.0096
0.0096
64
Fuel and Energy Consumed

Car kilometers saved
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
petrol
cars
diesel
cars
2903.743
5577.265
8020.565
10233.64
12216.5
11999.01
11781.53
11564.04
11346.55
11129.06
11165.23
11201.39
11237.55
11273.71
11309.88
11312.42
11314.97
11317.52
11320.06
11322.61
11322.61
11322.61
11322.61
11322.61
11322.61
11322.61
11322.61
11322.61
11322.61
11322.61
2188.02
4603.001
7244.943
10113.85
13209.71
13385.94
13562.18
13738.41
13914.64
14090.87
13974.74
13858.61
13742.48
13626.35
13510.22
13366.59
13222.96
13079.32
12935.69
12792.06
12792.06
12792.06
12792.06
12792.06
12792.06
12792.06
12792.06
12792.06
12792.06
12792.06
Fuel and energy consumption

Petrol
Diesel
Electric
electric consume consume cosumpti
cars
d (lts)
d (lts) on (kwh)
1.629886
6.519542
14.66897
26.07817
40.74714
81.49428
122.2414
162.9886
203.7357
244.4828
324.9584
405.434
485.9096
566.3852
646.8608
787.9478
929.0348
1070.122
1211.209
1352.296
1352.296
1352.296
1352.296
1352.296
1352.296
1352.296
1352.296
1352.296
1352.296
1352.296
179.3106
337.2065
474.7956
593.1426
693.2705
655.5978
619.7686
585.6978
553.3043
522.5103
505.1794
488.4182
472.2082
456.5315
441.3707
432.1992
423.2183
414.4239
405.8123
397.3797
394.439
391.5202
388.6229
385.7471
382.8926
380.0592
377.2468
374.4551
371.6842
368.9337
65
109.44
226.2952
350.0892
480.3629
616.6742
611.0284
605.3295
599.5824
593.7921
587.9635
567.8401
548.3676
529.5257
511.2946
493.6554
478.1506
463.0792
448.43
434.1919
420.354
416.3186
412.3219
408.3636
404.4433
400.5607
396.7153
392.9068
389.1349
385.3992
381.6994
0.204557
0.81733
1.836969
3.26213
5.091471
10.15138
15.17986
20.17707
25.14315
30.07825
39.69515
49.17398
58.51621
67.7233
76.7967
92.43364
107.6875
122.5653
137.0737
151.2195
150.8263
150.4342
150.0431
149.653
149.2639
148.8758
148.4887
148.1026
147.7176
147.3335
Calculation of Market price of petrol

Petrol price(2010)p/litre
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Petrol price(2011)p/litre
Resource
cost
Duty
51.95
56.89
53.62
56.47
VAT
0.2
0.2
54.13
57.96
0.2
54.65
57.96
0.2
55.18
58.58
0.2
55.71
59.44
0.2
56.25
60.16
0.2
56.79
60.73
0.2
57.34
61.16
0.2
57.9
61.44
0.2
58.46
61.56
0.2
59.02
61.68
0.2
59.59
61.8
0.2
60.17
61.92
0.2
60.75
62.04
0.2
61.34
62.16
0.2
61.94
62.28
0.2
62.54
62.4
0.2
63.15
62.52
0.2
63.76
62.65
0.2
63.88433
64.00891
64.13372
64.25878
64.38409
64.50964
64.63543
64.76147
64.88776
65.01429
62.77217
62.89457
63.01722
63.1401
63.26322
63.38659
63.51019
63.63404
63.75812
63.88245
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
66
Resource
cost
54.6514
56.40824
56.94476
57.4918
58.04936
58.60692
59.175
59.74308
60.32168
60.9108
61.49992
62.08904
62.68868
63.29884
63.909
64.52968
65.16088
65.79208
66.4338
67.07552
67.20632
67.33737
67.46868
67.60024
67.73206
67.86414
67.99647
68.12907
68.26192
68.39503
Duty
59.84828
59.40644
60.97392
60.97392
61.62616
62.53088
63.28832
63.88796
64.34032
64.63488
64.76112
64.88736
65.0136
65.13984
65.26608
65.39232
65.51856
65.6448
65.77104
65.9078
66.03632
66.16509
66.29411
66.42339
66.55291
66.68269
66.81272
66.94301
67.07355
67.20434
Market
price of
petrol
(/litre)
1.373996
1.389776
1.415024
1.421589
1.436106
1.453654
1.46956
1.483572
1.495944
1.506548
1.515132
1.523717
1.532427
1.541264
1.550101
1.559064
1.568153
1.577243
1.586458
1.5958
1.598912
1.60203
1.605153
1.608284
1.61142
1.614562
1.61771
1.620865
1.624026
1.627192
Calculation of Market price of Diesel
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Diesel price(2010)p/lt
Resource
cost
Duty
VAT
56.11
56.89
0.2
59.64
56.47
0.2
60.21
57.96
0.2
60.78
57.96
0.2
61.36
58.58
0.2
61.95
59.44
0.2
62.54
60.16
0.2
63.14
60.73
0.2
63.74
61.16
0.2
64.35
61.44
0.2
64.97
61.56
0.2
65.59
61.68
0.2
66.22
61.8
0.2
66.85
61.92
0.2
67.5
62.04
0.2
68.15
62.16
0.2
68.8
62.28
0.2
69.47
62.4
0.2
70.14
62.52
0.2
70.81
62.65
0.2
70.94808
62.77217
0.2
71.08643
62.89457
0.2
71.22505
63.01722
0.2
71.36394
63.1401
0.2
71.5031
63.26322
0.2
71.64253
63.38659
0.2
71.78223
63.51019
0.2
71.9222
63.63404
0.2
72.06245
63.75812
0.2
72.20297
63.88245
0.2
67
Diesel price(2011)p/lt
Resource
cost
Duty
59.02772
59.84828
62.74128
59.40644
63.34092
60.97392
63.94056
60.97392
64.55072
61.62616
65.1714
62.53088
65.79208
63.28832
66.42328
63.88796
67.05448
64.34032
67.6962
64.63488
68.34844
64.76112
69.00068
64.88736
69.66344
65.0136
70.3262
65.13984
71.01
65.26608
71.6938
65.39232
72.3776
65.51856
73.08244
65.6448
73.78728
65.77104
74.49212
65.9078
74.63738
66.03632
74.78292
66.16509
74.92875
66.29411
75.07486
66.42339
75.22126
66.55291
75.36794
66.68269
75.51491
66.81272
75.66216
66.94301
75.8097
67.07355
75.95753
67.20434
Market
price of
Diesel
(/lt)
1.426512
1.465773
1.491778
1.498974
1.514123
1.532427
1.548965
1.563735
1.576738
1.587973
1.597315
1.606656
1.616124
1.625592
1.635313
1.645033
1.654754
1.664727
1.6747
1.684799
1.688084
1.691376
1.694674
1.697979
1.70129
1.704608
1.707932
1.711262
1.714599
1.717942
Calculation of Market price for energy consumed

electricity
price(2011)p/lt
Electricity price(2010) kWh/lt

Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Resource
cost
VAT
Resource
cost
Duty
13.78
Duty
0.05
14.49656
14.78
0.05
15.54856
15.56
0.05
16.36912
16.05
0.05
16.8846
16.2
0.05
17.0424
16.74
0.05
17.61048
17.03
0.05
17.91556
16.78
0.05
17.65256
17.3
0.05
18.1996
17.96
0.05
18.89392
18.52
0.05
19.48304
18.78
0.05
19.75656
18.79
0.05
19.76708
19.27
0.05
20.27204
19.74
0.05
20.76648
19.92
0.05
20.95584
20.32
0.05
21.37664
20.45
0.05
21.5134
20.34
0.05
21.39768
20.6
0.05
21.6712
20.6
0.05
21.6712
20.56
0.05
21.62912
20.5
0.05
21.566
20.41
0.05
21.47132
20.29
0.05
21.34508
20.13
0.05
21.17676
19.95
0.05
20.9874
19.73
0.05
20.75596
19.49
0.05
20.50348
19.22
0.05
20.21944
68
Market
price of
energy
(/kWh)
0.152214
0.16326
0.171876
0.177288
0.178945
0.18491
0.188113
0.185352
0.191096
0.198386
0.204572
0.207444
0.207554
0.212856
0.218048
0.220036
0.224455
0.225891
0.224676
0.227548
0.227548
0.227106
0.226443
0.225449
0.224123
0.222356
0.220368
0.217938
0.215287
0.212304
Benefits from Fuel and Non-Fuel vehicle Operating cost
Year
Benefits from fuel

consumption
cost saved
()
From
From
From
petrol
diesel electric
cars
cras
cras
2011
246.372 156.1175 0.031136 11.54543 8.699674 0.003238 2.15641 1.624891 0.000364
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
468.6416 331.6973
671.8473 522.2554
843.2048 720.0513
995.6101 933.7203
953.0121 936.3567
910.7871 937.634
868.9252 937.5879
827.7122 936.2544
787.1869 933.6701
765.4137 907.0194
744.211 881.0384
723.6248 855.7794
703.6356 831.1567
684.1691 807.2811
673.8262 786.5737
663.6711 766.2822
653.6471 746.5135
643.8043 727.1411
634.1384 708.212
630.6732 702.7809
627.2269 697.3915
623.7995 692.0434
620.3908 686.7363
617.0007 681.4699
613.6291 676.2439
610.276 671.058
606.9412 665.9118
603.6246 660.8051
600.3261 655.7376
20617.33 22152.52
Total Fuel VOC
0.133437
0.31573
0.578337
0.911094
1.877091
2.855535
3.739858
4.80475
5.967108
8.120513
10.20084
12.14529
14.41534
16.74537
20.33876
24.17098
27.68636
30.79713
34.40964
34.32017
34.16447
33.9762
33.73909
33.45351
33.10342
32.72211
32.27713
31.8016
31.27951
551.0815
43320.93
Benefits from Non-fuel

working VOC
petrol
22.17198
31.88011
40.67022
48.54278
47.63971
46.73805
45.8378
44.93896
44.04153
44.11463
44.18728
44.25948
44.33122
44.40251
44.28838
44.1742
44.05996
43.94567
43.83132
43.83132
43.83132
43.83132
43.83132
43.83132
43.83132
43.83132
43.83132
43.83132
43.83132
1263.914
diesel
18.29887
28.79717
40.19413
52.48934
53.14624
53.802
54.45661
55.11009
55.76242
55.21523
54.6695
54.12523
53.58242
53.04105
52.33048
51.62307
50.9188
50.21769
49.51973
49.51973
49.51973
49.51973
49.51973
49.51973
49.51973
49.51973
49.51973
49.51973
49.51973
1441.197
69
electric
0.012951
0.02914
0.051804
0.080943
0.161886
0.242829
0.323773
0.404716
0.485659
0.645521
0.805384
0.965247
1.125109
1.284972
1.565238
1.845503
2.125769
2.406034
2.6863
2.6863
2.6863
2.6863
2.6863
2.6863
2.6863
2.6863
2.6863
2.6863
2.6863
44.11502
Benefits from Non-fuel non

working
Petrol
diesel
Total
Non-fuel
VOC
electric
4.140773 3.417442 0.001457

5.953223 5.377522 0.003278
7.593893 7.504997 0.005828
9.062916 9.799738 0.009106
8.891837 9.919618 0.018211
8.721111 10.03921 0.027317
8.550738 10.15852 0.036422
8.380718 10.27754 0.045528
8.211051 10.39628 0.054633
8.219186 10.28739 0.072617
8.227201 10.17888 0.0906
8.235097 10.07076 0.108584
8.242872 9.963023 0.126567
8.250527 9.855673 0.144551
8.220048 9.712684 0.176079
8.189555 9.570517 0.207607
8.159047 9.42917 0.239135
8.128524 9.288645 0.270663
8.097987 9.148941 0.302191
8.097987 9.148941 0.302191
8.097987 9.148941 0.302191
8.097987 9.148941 0.302191
8.097987 9.148941 0.302191
8.097987 9.148941 0.302191
8.097987 9.148941 0.302191
8.097987 9.148941 0.302191
8.097987 9.148941 0.302191
8.097987 9.148941 0.302191
8.097987 9.148941 0.302191
234.6126 267.5109 4.962651
Total Non-Fuel VOC
24.03
48.04348
72.04043
96.02088
119.9848
119.7775
119.5705
119.3639
119.1576
118.9516
118.5546
118.1589
117.7644
117.3712
116.9793
116.2929
115.6105
114.9319
114.2572
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
3256.312
3256.312
APPENDIX G: Indirect Tax Calculation

Fuel duty (2010
price level)
Fuel duty (2011)
VAT Rate (%)
Year
Petrol
p/lt
Diesel
p/lt
Petrol
p/lt
Diesel
p/lt
fuel
city
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
56.89
56.47
57.96
57.96
58.58
59.44
60.16
60.73
61.16
61.44
61.56
61.68
61.8
61.92
62.04
62.16
62.28
62.4
62.52
62.65
62.77217
62.89457
63.01722
63.1401
63.26322
63.38659
63.51019
63.63404
63.75812
63.88245
56.89
56.47
57.96
57.96
58.58
59.44
60.16
60.73
61.16
61.44
61.56
61.68
61.8
61.92
62.04
62.16
62.28
62.4
62.52
62.65
62.77217
62.89457
63.01722
63.1401
63.26322
63.38659
63.51019
63.63404
63.75812
63.88245
59.84828
59.40644
60.97392
60.97392
61.62616
62.53088
63.28832
63.88796
64.34032
64.63488
64.76112
64.88736
65.0136
65.13984
65.26608
65.39232
65.51856
65.6448
65.77104
65.9078
66.03632
66.16509
66.29411
66.42339
66.55291
66.68269
66.81272
66.94301
67.07355
67.20434
59.84828
59.40644
60.97392
60.97392
61.62616
62.53088
63.28832
63.88796
64.34032
64.63488
64.76112
64.88736
65.0136
65.13984
65.26608
65.39232
65.51856
65.6448
65.77104
65.9078
66.03632
66.16509
66.29411
66.42339
66.55291
66.68269
66.81272
66.94301
67.07355
67.20434
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Indirect taxation revenue

loss
electri
70
Petrol
12877.71
24038.69
34740.18
43399.48
51268.32
49194.13
47068.94
44902.85
42719.73
40526.87
39259.18
38030.6
36839.95
35686.07
34567.84
33915.01
33274.38
32645.73
32028.84
31428.5
31256.76
31085.96
30916.1
30747.16
30579.14
30412.04
30245.86
30080.58
29916.21
29752.74
Diesel
7859.757
16132.07
25615.57
35147.53
45603.91
45849.77
45972.34
45967.31
45845.73
45603.54
44128.75
42698.55
41311.64
39966.78
38662.74
37520.85
36408.34
35324.52
34268.7
33245.53
32990.58
32737.58
32486.53
32237.4
31990.18
31744.85
31501.41
31259.83
31020.11
30782.23
Electricity
0.010228
0.040866
0.091848
0.163106
0.254574
0.507569
0.758993
1.008853
1.257157
1.503912
1.984758
2.458699
2.92581
3.386165
3.839835
4.621682
5.384377
6.128266
6.853687
7.560976
7.541317
7.52171
7.502154
7.482648
7.463193
7.443789
7.424435
7.405131
7.385878
7.366675
Total
Indirect
tax
revenue
each year
Total
20737.4811
40170.8004
60355.8453
78547.1675
96872.4867
95044.413
93042.0368
90871.1707
88566.7172
86131.9099
83389.9184
80731.6124
78154.5185
75656.2341
73234.4261
71440.4827
69688.1088
67976.3809
66304.3952
64681.5904
64254.8813
63831.0658
63410.1238
62992.0354
62576.7807
62164.34
61754.6938
61347.8226
60943.7072
60542.3284
21054.1548
APPENDIX H: Accident Reduction Benefits

Cyclists shifting from Other Routes:
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Slight Serious
injury
Proportion injury
shifted
reduced
reduced
Users
119
230
341
452
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
563
25.823
49.91
73.997
98.084
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
122.171
0.000594
0.001148
0.001702
0.002256
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.00281
0.000103
0.0002
0.000296
0.000392
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
0.000489
71
Accident value
Slight
21641.12
21660.59
21937.85
22372.22
22886.78
23420.04
23918.89
24308.77
24707.43
25112.63
25577.22
26027.38
26488.06
26988.69
27474.48
27974.52
28486.45
29013.45
29556
30111.65
30683.78
31269.84
31904.61
32590.56
33291.26
34007.02
34714.37
35436.43
36173.5
36962.09
Serious
207638.1
207825
210485.1
214652.7
219589.7
224706.2
229492.4
233233.1
237058.2
240945.9
245403.4
249722.5
254142.6
258945.9
263606.9
268404.6
273316.4
278372.7
283578.3
288909.6
294398.9
300021.9
306112.3
312693.7
319416.6
326284.1
333070.8
339998.7
347070.7
354636.8
Total
Benefits from
Injury reduction
Slight
Serious
12.85329 21.44735
24.86485 41.49017
37.33671 62.30107
50.47021 84.21599
64.31032 107.31
65.80875 109.8103
67.21048 112.1493
68.30601 113.9773
69.42623 115.8465
70.56482 117.7464
71.87027 119.9247
73.13518 122.0354
74.42968 124.1954
75.8364 126.5427
77.20145 128.8205
78.60652 131.165
80.04502 133.5653
81.52585 136.0363
83.05038 138.5802
84.61173 141.1855
86.21935 143.868
87.86614 146.6159
89.64983 149.5922
91.5773 152.8084
93.54621 156.0938
95.55745 159.4498
97.54505 162.7664
99.57399 166.1519
101.6451 169.6079
103.861 173.3053
6027.110715
From Reduction in Car Kilometres:

Accident values
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
Car
Kilometr
es saved
5093.393
10186.79
15280.18
20373.57
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
25466.96
Slight
21641.12
21660.59
21937.85
22372.22
22886.78
23420.04
23918.89
24308.77
24707.43
25112.63
25577.22
26027.38
26488.06
26988.69
27474.48
27974.52
28486.45
29013.45
29556
30111.65
30683.78
31269.84
31904.61
32590.56
33291.26
34007.02
34714.37
35436.43
36173.5
36962.09
Serious
207638.1
207825
210485.1
214652.7
219589.7
224706.2
229492.4
233233.1
237058.2
240945.9
245403.4
249722.5
254142.6
258945.9
263606.9
268404.6
273316.4
278372.7
283578.3
288909.6
294398.9
300021.9
306112.3
312693.7
319416.6
326284.1
333070.8
339998.7
347070.7
354636.8
Fatal
1812745
1814377
1837601
1873985
1917087
1961755
2003541
2036198
2069592
2103533
2142449
2180156
2218744
2260679
2301371
2343256
2386137
2430281
2475727
2522271
2570194
2619285
2672456
2729914
2788607
2848562
2907812
2968295
3030035
3096090
Slight
Injury
incidents
0.006621
0.013243
0.019864
0.026486
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
0.033107
72
Serious
injury
incidents
0.000876
0.001752
0.002628
0.003504
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
0.00438
Fatal
injury
incidents
0.000132
0.000265
0.000397
0.00053
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
0.000662
Total
Incident Reduction Benefits

Slight
Serious
Fatal
Injury
injury
injury
incidents incidents incidents
143.2947 181.9041 240.0586
286.8474 364.1357 480.5493
435.7785 553.195 730.0506
592.5426 752.1977 992.6741
757.7138 961.8728 1269.382
775.3686 984.2844 1298.959
791.8839 1005.25 1326.626
804.7916 1021.635 1348.25
817.9902 1038.39 1370.362
831.4052 1055.42 1392.836
846.7862 1074.945 1418.603
861.6897 1093.864 1443.571
876.9416 1113.225 1469.122
893.5158 1134.265 1496.888
909.5991 1154.682 1523.832
926.1538 1175.697 1551.566
943.1024 1197.213 1579.959
960.5498 1219.361 1609.189
978.5121 1242.163 1639.281
996.9081 1265.516 1670.099
1015.849 1289.56 1701.831
1035.252 1314.191 1734.336
1056.268 1340.869 1769.543
1078.977 1369.698 1807.588
1102.175 1399.146 1846.451
1125.872 1429.228 1886.15
1149.29 1458.956 1925.382
1173.196 1489.302 1965.43
1197.598 1520.28 2006.311
1223.706 1553.422 2050.048
104888.3531
APPENDIX I: Cost Benefit Analysis

Present Value of Cost
Cost
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Construction cost
1,050,000
Indirect tax
revenue
20737.48
40170.8
60355.85
78547.17
96872.49
95044.41
93042.04
90871.17
88566.72
86131.91
83389.92
80731.61
78154.52
75656.23
73234.43
71440.48
69688.11
67976.38
66304.4
64681.59
64254.88
63831.07
63410.12
62992.04
62576.78
62164.34
61754.69
61347.82
60943.71
60542.33
Total ()
PV of indirect
tax
20036.21
37499.87
54437.51
68449.32
81564.03
77318.69
73130.2
69008.62
64984.14
61060.53
57117.57
53426.83
49972.32
46739.04
43712.94
41200.15
38830.48
36595.84
34488.61
32506.76
31200.3
29946.38
28742.9
27587.81
26479.18
25415.12
24393.86
23413.66
22472.88
21569.92
Maintenance
9661.836
9335.107
9019.427
8714.422
8419.732
8135.006
7859.91
7594.116
7337.31
7089.188
6849.457
6617.833
6394.042
6177.818
5968.906
5767.059
5572.038
5383.611
5201.557
5025.659
4855.709
4691.506
4532.856
4379.571
4231.47
4088.377
3950.122
3816.543
3687.482
3562.784
13033.02
1,246,953
Total PVC
73
183920.5
Noise
10.19
20.37
30.56
40.75
50.93
50.93
50.93
50.93
50.93
50.93
56.03
61.12
66.21
71.31
76.40
76.40
76.40
76.40
76.40
76.40
76.40
76.40
76.40
76.40
76.40
76.40
76.40
76.40
76.40
76.40
1884.56
TEE
Business
Users
Congestion
97.79
197.62
299.49
403.40
509.34
514.43
519.53
524.62
529.71
534.81
539.90
544.99
550.09
555.18
560.27
570.46
580.65
590.83
601.02
611.21
616.30
621.39
626.49
631.58
636.67
636.67
636.67
636.67
636.67
636.67
16151.15
74
178.27
5.09
10.19
15.28
20.37
25.47
25.47
25.47
25.47
25.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Air
quality
5633.29
41.7658185
85.568994
131.4095265
179.287416
229.2026625
219.0158775
208.8290925
198.6423075
188.4555225
178.2687375
178.2687375
178.2687375
178.2687375
178.2687375
178.2687375
178.2687375
178.2687375
178.2687375
178.2687375
178.2687375
188.4555225
198.6423075
208.8290925
219.0158775
229.2026625
229.2026625
229.2026625
229.2026625
229.2026625
229.2026625
Greenhouse
gases
402.5207
800.4724
1194.418
1563.834
1930.241
1891.246
1851.277
1810.253
1768.771
1726.824
1680.554
1635.45
1591.55
1549.208
1508.196
1480.739
1454.124
1427.847
1401.742
1376.76
1367.774
1358.783
1349.819
1340.866
1331.924
1322.976
1314.056
1305.13
1296.231
1287.343
VOC fuel
21450.02 43320.93
115.59704
231.4021547
351.5461534
478.009023
611.2540381
625.4962572
638.8193275
649.2320825
659.8794887
670.7015123
683.1094902
695.1322173
707.4360575
720.806599
733.7811178
747.1359341
760.8085217
774.8834794
789.3738004
804.2140279
819.4940944
835.1464316
852.0999042
870.4200521
889.1340833
908.250466
927.1420757
946.4266309
966.1123048
987.1735531
Time
savings
VOC
Nonfuel
3256.31
24.03
48.04348
72.04043
96.02088
119.9848
119.7775
119.5705
119.3639
119.1576
118.9516
118.5546
118.1589
117.7644
117.3712
116.9793
116.2929
115.6105
114.9319
114.2572
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
113.5865
TEE (Consumers)
2598198.237
2600536.616
2633823.484
2685973.189
2747750.573
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Health
1462635.30 13266282.10
10447.395
20894.79
31342.185
41789.58
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
52236.975
Journey
ambience
Benefits
97305.42
524.3920429
1049.727991
1594.746765
2168.430334
2772.88029
2837.4884
2897.926903
2945.163112
2993.463787
3042.556593
3098.84389
3153.383542
3209.198431
3269.852281
3328.709623
3389.292138
3451.316184
3515.165533
3580.899129
3648.220032
3717.536213
3788.541155
3865.44854
3948.555684
4033.449631
4120.168798
4205.868309
4293.35037
4382.652057
4478.193872
6027.11
34.30064
66.35502
99.63778
134.6862
171.6203
175.6191
179.3597
182.2833
185.2728
188.3112
191.795
195.1706
198.6251
202.3791
206.0219
209.7715
213.6104
217.5622
221.6306
225.7972
230.0874
234.482
239.242
244.3857
249.64
255.0073
260.3114
265.7259
271.253
277.1663
2609867.01
2623874.80
2668855.16
2732712.87
2806236.85
58520.83
58549.32
58560.65
58572.82
58560.02
58592.23
58623.48
58657.49
58698.97
58739.58
58795.56
58854.15
58915.31
58978.94
59045.63
59136.52
59229.47
59329.65
59437.40
59547.35
59644.23
59739.91
59837.75
59937.83
60045.55
Total
Benefits
104888.35 Total PVB

BCR
565.2574834
1131.53243
1719.024068
2337.414326
2988.968569
3058.611537
3123.759963
3174.67725
3226.741957
3279.660525
3340.334245
3399.124128
3459.288625
3524.66918
3588.113225
3653.416886
3720.274415
3789.099491
3859.955652
3932.522818
4007.240752
4083.77905
4166.679765
4256.26338
4347.773042
4441.250163
4533.628166
4627.927632
4724.188527
4827.175836
Absenteeis
m
Accident Reduction
PVB
12490416
10.01675
2521611
2449415
2407154
2381401
2362776
47606.73
46019.24
44471.63
42976.69
41514.3
40132.5
38796.04
37505.84
36263.15
35061.11
33907.75
32793.76
31717.71
30678.23
29674.32
28714.97
27787.54
26893.28
26031.03
25197.28
24384.81
23597.99
22837.34
22101.97
21392.93
Present Value of Benefits

Dissertation On Strategic Evaluation of Interventions in Promoting Cycling and Walking by Meyyapparaj

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Dissertation On Strategic Evaluation of Interventions in Promoting Cycling and Walking by Meyyapparaj

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Strategic evaluation of Interventions in Promoting Cycling and Walking

4.2.5. Accident Reduction Benefits31

Table 14: Accident prevention values as per severity of accidents13

Trips per person per year

Miles per person per year

1.2 Aims and Objectives

1.3 Structure of Report

2.2 Interventions and its effect on human behavior

tailored to participants requirement or circumstances such as promoting environment friendly

2.3 Types of Interventions:

Targeted behavior change programs- directed at motivated sub groups.

As this report is mainly focusing on evaluation of engineering interventions we shall look at

2.4 Impact of engineering measures:

2.5 Economic evaluation of interventions:

Reduced sprawl costs

Factors Affecting Walking and Cycling Travel Demand (Based on Dill

Impacts on Non-Motorized Travel

Many lower-income people tend to rely on non-motorized modes for transportation.

Daily walking trips tend to be higher in households that own dogs.

Cycling rates tend to increase where communities consider it socially acceptable.

2.6 Evaluation of Cycling Benefits:

Increasing health and fitness

Value of lost lives-reducing Mortality

NHS savings-Reducing the cost to the treatment of illnesses as a result of physical

Wastage of travelling time and delays during a working day

Range values per Km

Surface Transport costs and charges Great 9.71p-11.16p

2.7 Evaluation of walking benefits:

Degree that walking provides mobility Travel modelling, analysis of

cost Degree to which walking provides

Public cost savings Degree that walking substitutes for

Determine to what degree

Degree that walking helps reduce the

Identify the full economic,

Efficient land use

Public fitness and

Property values, business

2.9 Site Location:

Figure 4 Itchen Riverside Boardwalk, Southampton.

Figure 5: Southern end of the walkway towards the Industrial area.

SURVEYS AT SITE LOCATION:

Figure 6 Route User Survey Location at Itchen Boardwalk, Southampton.

Riverside Walkway 2011

Riverside Walkway 2010

Riverside Walkway 2011

Sub-objectives under these main objectives are divided as follow:

Table 6 Modified Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits Table

Used for appraising

Cycling and walking users

New individuals cycling or walking

Health and Journey ambience

Car kilometers saved

3.1 Estimation of Cycling and walking users:

Daily Cycling trips in Southampton (2010/11) = 6251

Users generated by New

Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclists Pedestrians

3.2 Estimation of Car kilometers saved:

Mean trip length in Km per trip (2011) =2.1 Kms.

3.3 Estimation of Commuter trips:

4. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Results

4.2 Evaluation of Benefits from the scheme: